A G E N D A
Wednesday, February 27, 2019 – 9:00 a.m.
Placer County Board of Supervisors Chambers 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603
A. Flag Salute
B. Roll Call
C. Closed Session – Conference Room A Action Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9):
NAME OF CASE: Sierra Club v. Caltrans, PCTPA, et al. (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2018-80002859) (CEQA Litigation – SR 65 Widening Project)
D. Approval of Action Minutes: January 23, 2019 Action Pg. 1 E Agenda Review
F. Public Comment
G. Consent Calendar Action These items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will Pg. 4 be acted upon by the Board at one time without discussion. Any Board member, staff member, or interested citizen may request an item be removed from the consent calendar for discussion. 1. FY 2019/20 Preliminary Findings of Apportionment for Local Pg. 6 Transportation Fund (LTF) 2. FY 2019/20 Preliminary State Transit Assistance (STA) Fund Pg. 8 Allocation Estimate
-H. Unmet Transit Needs Report and Findings for FY 2019/20 Action Pg. 10
I. Preliminary Draft FY 2019/20 Overall Work Program and Budget Action Pg. 56
PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY 299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax) www.pctpa.net Board of Directors Meeting Agenda PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY February 27, 2019 Page 2
J. PRESENTATION: Caltrans District 3 Regional Managed Lanes Action Feasibility Study Pg. 58
K. Executive Director’s Report Info
L. Board Direction to Staff
M. Informational Items Info 1. TAC Minutes – February 12, 2019 Pg. 59 2. Status Reports a. PCTPA Pg. 62 b. AIM Consulting – January 2019 Pg. 78 c. Key Advocates – January 2019 Pg. 81 d. Capitol Corridor – Monthly Performance Report Pg. 85 3. PCTPA Revenues and Expenditures for December 2018 and Under separate cover January 2019 4. WPCTSA Quarterly Financial Report – December 2018 Under separate cover
Next Regularly Scheduled PCTPA Board Meeting March 27, 2019
The Placer County Board of Supervisors’ Chambers is accessible to the disabled. If requested, this agenda, and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Federal Rules and Regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Persons seeking an alternative format should contact PCTPA for further information. In addition, a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in a public meeting should contact PCTPA by phone at 530-823-4030, email ([email protected]) or in person as soon as possible and preferably at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Following is a list of our 2019 Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) meetings.
Board meetings are typically held the fourth Wednesday of the month at 9:00 a.m. except for November and December meetings which are typically combined meetings. PCTPA meetings are typically held at the Placer County Board of Supervisors’ Chambers, 175 Fulweiler Avenue, Auburn, California.
PCTPA Board Meetings – 2019 Wednesday, January 23 Wednesday, July 24 Wednesday, February 27 Wednesday, August 28 Wednesday, March 27 Wednesday, September 25 Wednesday, April 24 Wednesday, October 23 Wednesday, May 22 Wednesday, December 4 Wednesday, June 26
ACTION MINUTES of January 23, 2019
A regular meeting of the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Board convened on Wednesday, January 23, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. at the Placer County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 175 Fulweiler Avenue, Auburn, California.
ROLL CALL: John Allard Kathleen Hanley Brian Baker Aaron Hoyt Ken Broadway Shirley LeBlanc Trinity Burruss, Vice Chair Mike Luken, Executive Director Jim Holmes, Chair Luke McNeel-Caird, Deputy Executive Director Paul Joiner David Melko Matt Spokely Solvi Sabol Ron Treabess Kirk Uhler
CLOSED SESSION No closed session was held.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – DECEMBER 4, 2018 Upon motion by Broadway and second by Uhler, the minutes of December 4, 2018 were unanimously approved.
PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment received.
CONSENT CALENDAR These items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They were acted upon by the Board at one time without discussion. Any Board member, staff member, or interested citizen may request an item be removed from the consent calendar for discussion. 1. PCTPA Financial Audit & TDA Compliance Report
ACTION: Upon motion by Uhler and second by Holmes, the Consent Calendar was unanimously approved.
ADJOURN AS THE PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
CONVENE AS THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
1
1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO APPROVE A SPECIAL CONDITION EXCEPTION TO EXCEED LINCOLN REGIONAL AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY ZONE C1 INTENSITY REQUIREMENTS ACTION REQUESTED: 1) Open the continued public hearing from December 5, 2018, receive public comment, close the public hearing; and 2) Receive and file the applicants request to withdraw the request for Special Conditions Exception. Staff presenting: David Melko, Senior Transportation Planner
ACTION: Chair Holmes continuted the public hearing from Devember 5, 2018 to receive public comment. There was no public comment. Upon motion by Joiner and second by Baker the Board unanimously received and filed the applicant’s request to withdraw the request for Special Conditions Exception.
ADJOURN AS THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSIOM
CONVENE AS THE PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
PLACER-SACRAMENTO CORRIDOR MOBILITY PLAN – CONTRACT AWARD AUTHORIZATION ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and sign a consultant contract not to exceed $650,000 for the Placer-Sacramento Corridor Mobility Plan (PSCMP). Staff presenting: Luke McNeel-Caird, Deputy Executive Director
ACTION: Upon motion by Joiner and second by Broadway, the Board unanimously authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and sign a consultant contract not to exceed $650,000 for the Placer-Sacramento Corridor Mobility Plan (PSCMP).
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING OUTREACH STRATEGY UPDATE ACTION REQUESTED: It is recommended that the Board receive an update by staff on the funding outreach strategy and provide comments on the expenditure plan prior to February polling research. Staff presenting: Mike Luken, Executive Director
ACTION: The Board received an update by staff on the funding outreach strategy prior to February polling research. No comments were received by the Board on the expenditure plan.
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR 2019 ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the Federal Legislative Program for 2019 as shown in this Report and direct staff and federal advocates to represent these positions, including travel to Washington DC. Staff presenting: Mike Luken, Executive Director
ACTION: Upon motion by Allard and second by Broadway, the Board unanimously adopted the Federal Legislative Program for 2019 as provided and direct staff and federal advocates to represent these positions, including travel to Washington DC and a small sponsored reception for Placer during the 2019 Cap to Cap event..
2
2 STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR 2019 ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the State Legislative Program for 2019 as shown in this Report and direct staff and State Advocate to represent these positions with electeds and agencies in Sacramento. Staff presenting: Mike Luken Executive Director
ACTION: Upon motion by Allard and second by Spokely, the Board unanimously adopted the State Legislative Program for 2019 as provided and directed staff and State Advocate to represent these positions with electeds and agencies in Sacramento.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mike Luken reported on the following: 1) The specifics of the January California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting in Rocklin, as well as staff and commission site tours and a reception in Roseville. 2) The Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure Project preliminarily received $14.3 million in Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant funding. The CTC is expected to approve this grant funding at their January meeting. This funding is in addition to $50 million that Caltrans has dedicated to this stretch of highway. These improvements will be done in phases and is expected to make significant safety improvements. Of note, $750,000 is dedicated to the Safe Routes to School program which will teach students in the surrounding schools on Highway 49 how to use these improvements. We will continue to work closely with Caltrans, Placer County, the City of Auburn, the Highway 49 Business Association, the Auburn Chamber of Commerce as well as all of businesses on this stretch of highway as work in both projects progresses.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RON TREABESS Chair Holmes presented Ron Treabess with a plaque in appreciation of his dedication and service as a Citizen at Large member on the PCTPA Board from 2012 – 2019.
ADOURN With a motion by Baker and second by Allard, the Board adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:50 a.m.
______Mike Luken, Executive Director Jim Holmes, Chair
A video of this meeting is available online at http://pctpa.net/agendas2019/.
3
3 MEMORANDUM
TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 27, 2019
FROM: Michael Luken, Executive Director
SUBJECT: CONSENT CALENDAR
Below are the Consent Calendar items for the February 27, 2019 agenda for your review and action.
1. FY 2019/20 Preliminary Findings of Apportionment for Local Transportation Fund (LTF) As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Placer County, PCTPA is responsible for the administration of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. The TDA was established in 1971 to provide transportation funding though the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) derived from ¼ cent of the general sales tax collected statewide. LTF funds are allocated for specific transportation uses as prioritized by the TDA and intended for public transportation uses prior to those for streets and road.
The preliminary LTF apportionment for FY 2019/20 estimates a $2.7 million carryover from FY 2018/19 and recommends a two percent growth over the current fiscal year due to concerns over slowing sales tax receipts. The preliminary fund estimate totals $28,066,853 and the jurisdictional distributions should be used for budgeting purposes. A revised estimate will be presented to the Board of Directors after the close of the Fiscal Year in August.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached Preliminary Finding of LTF apportionment for FY 2019/20. The PCTPA TAC concurred with this recommendation at its February 12, 2019 meeting.
2. FY 2019/20 Preliminary State Transit Assistance (STA) Fund Allocation Estimate State Transit Assistance (STA) is one of two fund sources made available through the Transportation Development Act and is derived from the statewide sales of diesel fuel. STA funds are dedicated to public transit operations and capital uses. The funds are distributed on a population basis (section 99313) to each jurisdiction and on a fare revenue basis (section 99314) to those jurisdictions operating a public transit service.
The State Controller’s Office (SCO) released the preliminary estimate for FY 2019/20 on January 31, 2019. The estimate is approximately 16% higher than FY 2018/19 due to continued infusion of SB 1 revenues. The preliminary fund estimate totals $3,532,699 and the jurisdictional distributions should be used for budgeting purposes. A revised estimate will be presented to the Board of Directors after the close of the Fiscal Year in August.
299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax) www.pctpa.net 4 Board of Directors Consent Calendar February 2019 Page 2
Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached FY 2019/20 Preliminary STA Fund Allocation Estimate. The PCTPA TAC concurred with this recommendation at its February 12, 2019 meeting.
5 PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY (PCTPA) PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF APPORTIONMENT FOR FY 2019/2020 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND (LTF) February 2019
FY 2018/2019 FY 2019/2020 FY 2019/2020 Estimated Fund Revenue Apportionment Balance Subtotal (1) Subtotal Total PLACER COUNTY LTF REVENUE ESTIMATE $2,276,899 $25,789,954 $28,066,853
TRPA Revenue Estimate (2) 2.8598% $737,552 $737,552 TRPA LTF Fund Balance $66,508 $66,508 TRPA TOTAL $737,552 $804,060 County Auditor Administrative Costs $257 $257 BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT BY TRPA $803,803
PCTPA Revenue Estimate 97.1402% $25,052,403 $25,052,403 PCTPA LTF Fund Balance $2,210,391 $2,210,391 PCTPA TOTAL $25,052,403 $27,262,794 County Auditor Administrative Costs $8,743 $8,743 PCTPA Administrative and Planning Costs (3) $475,000 $475,000 Pedestrian and Bicycle Allocation (4) $44,208 $491,373.20 $535,581 Community Transit Service Article 4.5 Allocation (5) $86,647 $963,091 $1,049,739 BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT BY PCTPA $2,079,536 $23,114,195 $25,193,731
Apportionment of FY 2019/2020 PCTPA LTF Revenue Estimate by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Population Percent (%) FY 2019/20 FY 2018/19 Carryover Revenue January 1, 2018 Allocation Subtotal Apportionment(6) Apportionment PLACER COUNTY 102,173 27.00% $6,241,270 $561,514 $6,802,784 AUBURN 14,611 3.86% $892,518 $80,298 $972,816 COLFAX 2,150 0.57% $131,333 $11,816 $143,149 LINCOLN 48,591 12.84% $2,968,197 $267,042 $3,235,239 LOOMIS 6,824 1.80% $416,846 $37,503 $454,349 ROCKLIN 66,830 17.66% $4,082,332 $367,279 $4,449,611 ROSEVILLE 137,213 36.26% $8,381,700 $754,084 $9,135,784 TOTAL 378,392 100.00% $23,114,195 $2,079,536 $25,193,731
Apportionment of FY 2019/2020 PCTPA LTF Revenue Estimate Available to Claimant
Jurisdiction Revenue Planning Available to Apportionment Contribution(7) Claimant PLACER COUNTY $6,802,784 ($272,111) $6,530,673 AUBURN $972,816 ($38,913) $933,903 COLFAX $143,149 ($5,726) $137,423 LINCOLN $3,235,239 ($129,410) $3,105,830 LOOMIS $454,349 ($18,174) $436,175 ROCKLIN $4,449,611 ($177,984) $4,271,626 ROSEVILLE $9,135,784 ($365,431) $8,770,352 TOTAL $25,193,731 ($1,007,749) $24,185,982
NOTES: 1) FY 2018/2019 LTF balance based on February 8, 2019 preliminary fund balance provided by Placer County Auditor. 2) Tahoe Regional Planning Agency receives funds proportional to its population within Placer County (see box below). 3) Apportioned per Section 7.1 PCTPA Rules & Bylaws for FY 2018/2018 Preliminary Overall Work Program and Budget, February 2019. 4) Pedestrian and Bicycle Allocation is 2% of the remaining apportionment, per PCTPA Board direction. 5) Community Transit Service Article 4.5 allocation is up to 5% of the remaining apportionment, per PCTPA Board direction. FY 2019/2020 Article 4.5 allocation is set at 4%. 6) FY 2018/19 carryover apportionment (see next page) uses May 2018 DOF population estimates. 7) PCTPA receives 4% of apportionment for regional planning purposes and implementation of FAST-Act planning requirements.
January 1, 2018 DOF Population Estimates1 TRPA Population2 11,140 2.8598% PCTPA Population 378,392 97.1402% TOTAL 389,532 100.00% Sources: 1. Table E-1: City/County Population Estimates January 1, 2017 to January 1, 2018, DOF, May 1, 2018. 2. Western Slope and Tahoe Basin for Placer County as of January 1, 2018, DOF, May 16, 2018.
8-Feb-19
Printed:2/8/2019 6 Calculation of FY 2018/19 PCTPA LTF Carryover Using 2018 Population - Western Slope
Amount of FY 2018/2019 Carryover: $2,079,536 POPULATION January 1, JURISDICTION PERCENT ALLOCATION 2018 PLACER COUNTY 102,173 27.00% $561,514 AUBURN 14,611 3.86% $80,298 COLFAX 2,150 0.57% $11,816 LINCOLN 48,591 12.84% $267,042 LOOMIS 6,824 1.80% $37,503 ROCKLIN 66,830 17.66% $367,279 ROSEVILLE 137,213 36.26% $754,084 TOTAL 378,392 100.00% $2,079,536 Sources: 1. Table E-1: City/County Population Estimates January 1, 2017 to January 1, 2018, DOF, May 1, 2018. 2. FY 2018/2019 LTF balance based on February 8, 2019 preliminary fund estimate provided by Placer County Auditor.
8-Feb-19
Printed:2/8/2019 7 PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY FY 2019/2020 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE (STA) FUND PRELIMINARY ALLOCATION ESTIMATE (EXCLUDING TAHOE BASIN) February 2019
PUC 99313 Allocation $2,972,036 PUC 99314 Allocation $560,663 Total STA Allocation(1) $3,532,699
4 Percent Allocation of PUC 99313 to WPCTSA(2) $118,881
Total PUC 99313 Allocation Available to Jurisdictions $2,853,155
FY 2019/2020 Jurisdiction PUC Section 99313 STA Fund Allocation January PUC 99313 PUC 99313 Jurisdiction 2018 Population Population (3) Population Percentage Allocation Placer County 102,173 27.00% $770,406 Auburn 14,611 3.86% $110,170 Colfax 2,150 0.57% $16,211 Lincoln 48,591 12.84% $366,386 Loomis 6,824 1.80% $51,454 Rocklin 66,830 17.66% $503,912 Roseville 137,213 36.26% $1,034,615 TOTAL 378,392 100.00% $2,853,155 Notes: (1) 2019/2020 State Transit Assistance Allocation Preliminary Estimate, California State Controller Division of Accounting and Reporting, January 31, 2019. (2) 4% of unencumbered PUC 99313 Allocation is allocated to WPCTSA. (3) Table E-1: City/County Population Estimates January 1, 2017 to January 1, 2018, DOF, May 1, 2018.
PUC = Public Utilities Code
FY 2019/2020 Jurisdiction PUC 99314 STA Final Fund Allocation PUC 99314 PUC 99314 PUC 99314 Total Jurisdiction Fare Revenue Fare Revenue Fare Revenue Jurisdiction (4) Basis Percentage Allocation Allocation Placer County $6,410,020 82.4% $461,820 $1,232,226 Auburn $67,408 0.9% $4,857 $115,027 Colfax $0 0.0% $0 $16,211 Lincoln $0 0.0% $0 $366,386 Loomis $0 0.0% $0 $51,454 Rocklin $0 0.0% $0 $503,912 Roseville $1,304,523 16.8% $93,986 $1,128,601 TOTAL $7,781,951 100.0% $560,663 $3,413,818 Notes: (4) 2019/2020 State Transit Assistance Allocation Preliminary Estimate, California State Controller Division of Accounting and Reporting, January 31, 2019.
January 1, 2018 DOF Population Estimates 1 TRPA Population 2 11,140 2.8598% PCTPA Population 378,392 97.1402% TOTAL 389,532 100.00% Sources: 1. Table E-1: City/County Population Estimates January 1, 2017 to January 1, 2018, DOF, May 1, 2018. 2. Western Slope and Tahoe Basin for Placer County as of January 1, 2018, DOF, May 16, 2018.
5-Feb-19
1 2/6/2019 8 CALCULATION of FY 2019/20 PUC 99314 REVENUE BASIS ALLOCATION
99314.8 Allocation: $ 560,663 Fare Fare Fare Revenue Revenue Revenue (1) Entity / Operator Basis Percentage Allocation Placer County $ 6,410,020 82.4% 461,820$ Auburn $ 67,408 0.9% 4,857$ Colfax $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ Lincoln $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ Loomis $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ Rocklin $ ‐ 0.0% $ ‐ Roseville $ 1,304,523 16.8% 93,986$ Sub‐Total Allocation 99314 $ 7,781,951 100.0% 560,663$ Source: (1) 2019/2020 State Transit Assistance Allocation Revised Estimate, California State Controller Division of Accounting and Reporting, January 31, 2019.
9 MEMORANDUM
TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 27, 2019
FROM: Kathleen Hanley, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS REPORT AND FINDINGS FOR FY 2019/2020
ACTION REQUESTED Adopt Resolution No. 19-01 making the following findings and recommendations regarding the annual unmet transit needs analysis and recommendations as required by the Transportation Development Act (TDA): 1. There are new unmet transit needs in FY 2018/19 that are reasonable to meet for implementation in FY 2019/20: a. Service between Lincoln and Rocklin for someone who is physically unable to use the Placer County Transit Lincoln/Sierra College fixed-route is a new unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet. Placer County, Lincoln, and Rocklin will work together to ensure that individuals who meet this criterion can be served by Dial-A-Ride services between Lincoln and Rocklin. Data will be collected for 24 months for this modified service and analyzed to determine the feasibility of this modified service, the number of the requests for service by jurisdiction and location, and the best operational methods for implementation. The Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) recommends a broader effort of combining the Lincoln and Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride areas for all passengers. However, the larger project is not considered part of this unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet. The feasibility of combining the Lincoln and Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride areas will require additional study to estimate the impacts to passenger wait times, ride times, trip denials, cost, and funding shares from Placer County, the City of Lincoln, the City of Rocklin and the Town of Loomis.
2. The Annual Unmet Transit Needs Report for Fiscal Year 2019/2020 is accepted as complete
BACKGROUND As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Placer County, PCTPA is responsible for the administration of TDA funds. This responsibility includes the annual unmet transit needs process, which has four key components: • Soliciting testimony on unmet transit needs that may exist in Placer County; • Analyzing transit needs in accordance with adopted definitions of “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet;” (Attachment 1, Appendices B and C) • Consultation with the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC); and • Adoption of a finding regarding unmet transit needs that may exist for implementation in the next fiscal year.
299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax)
www.pctpa.net 10 PCTPA Board of Directors Unmet Transit Needs Report and Findings for FY 2019/20 February 27, 2019 Page 2
If, based on the adopted definition and criteria, any unmet transit needs are determined to be reasonable to meet by the PCTPA Board; they must be funded in the next fiscal year prior to any TDA funds being allocated for non-transit purposes.
DISCUSSION This year Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) received a record 244 Unmet Transit Needs comments through three workshops, a hearing, and extensive online engagement.
There were four dominant trends in comments: 1. As in previous years, there were many comments requesting a service that already exists, reflecting a need for more public education around transit. 2. There were multiple requests for additional transit service in Rocklin and West Roseville, where there has been a lot of population growth and housing development in recent years. 3. There were dozens of requests to improve the two commuter bus services, including comments on how crowded the service has gotten. 4. As in previous years, rural communities like Foresthill, Alta, and Sheridan requested new or more frequent service to reach nearby cities. PCTPA staff analyzed all public comments according to adopted PCTPA definitions and Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) recommendations. This analysis is documented in the Annual Unmet Transit Needs Report for Fiscal Year 2019/2020 (Attachment 1).
As a result of this analysis, staff found that service between Lincoln and Rocklin for someone who is physically unable to use the Placer County Transit (PCT) Lincoln/Sierra College fixed-route is a new unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet for implementation in FY 2019/20. Currently, while both Lincoln and Rocklin contract with PCT to offer Dial-A-Ride to the general public, trips cannot be made between the two cities. Placer County, Lincoln, and Rocklin will work together to ensure that individuals who meet this criterion can be served by Dial-A-Ride services between Lincoln and Rocklin. Data will be collected for 24 months for this modified service and analyzed to determine the feasibility of this modified service, the number of the requests for service by jurisdiction and location, and the best operational methods for implementation.
The SRTP recommends a broader effort of combining the Lincoln and Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A- Ride areas for all passengers. However, the larger project is not considered part of this unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet. The feasibility of combining the Lincoln and Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride areas will require additional study to estimate the impacts to passenger wait times, ride times, trip denials, cost, and funding shares from Placer County, the City of Lincoln, the City of Rocklin and the Town of Loomis.
PCTPA staff presented recommended findings for this year and the results of last year’s recommendation to the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) on January 31, 2019 and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on February 12, 2019. Both the SSTAC and the TAC concurred with staff recommendation. Staff also discussed this approach with the City Manager’s Office of Rocklin and Lincoln.
KH:LM:ML:ss 11 Agenda Item H - Attachment 1
ATTACHMENT 1 Annual Unmet Transit Needs Report For Fiscal Year 2019-2020
Proposed Adoption: February 27, 2019 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This year Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) received a record 244 Unmet Transit Needs comments through three workshops, a hearing, and extensive online engagement. The comments represent nearly every part of Placer County and reflect the diversity of needs for transit across its communities.
There were four dominant trends in comments. First, as in previous years, there were many comments requesting a service that already exists, reflecting a need for more public eductation around transit. Second, there were many requests for additional service in Rocklin and West Roseville, where there has been a lot of growth in recent years. Third, there were dozens of requests to improve the two commuter bus services, including comments on how crowded the service has gotten. Fourth, as in previous years, rural communities like Foresthill, Alta, and Sheridan requested new or more frequent service to reach nearby cities.
PCTPA staff analyzed these comments according to adopted Unmet Transit Needs definitions, and presented recommended findings to the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC), the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and the PCTPA Board of Directors.
Service between Lincoln and Rocklin for someone who is physically unable to use the Placer County Transit Lincoln/ Sierra College fixed-route is a new unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet. Placer County, Lincoln, and Rocklin will work together to ensure that individuals who meet this criterion can be served by Dial-A-Ride services between Lincoln and Rocklin. Data will be collected for 24 months for this modified service and analyzed to determine the feasibility of this modified service, the number of the requests for service by jurisdiction and location, and the best operational methods for implementation.
13 Unmet Transit Needs Report 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
About Unmet Transit Needs ...... 4 About PCTPA ...... 4 Definitions and Requirements ...... 5 Transit Funding ...... 6 Outreach and Analysis Process ...... 7 Status of Last Year’s Recommendations ...... 7
Existing Transit Service ...... 8 Transit Operators ...... 8 Transit Planning ...... 8 Interregional, Intercity, and Commuter Service ...... 9 Local Service ...... 9 Demand-Response and Paratransit Service ...... 9
Analysis and Recommendations ...... 10 Official Finding ...... 10 Service between Lincoln and Rocklin ...... 10 Analysis of Comments ...... 11
Appendices ...... 12 A - Public Comments and Responses ...... 12 B - Adopted TDA Definitions and Unmet Transit Needs Policy ...... 42 C - Adopted TDA Fare Revenue Ratios ...... 43
14 3 FY 2019 - 2020 ABOUT UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS About PCTPA Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) is the state designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the western slope of Placer County. PCTPA’s jurisdiction includes five cities–Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Auburn, and Colfax,–the town of Loomis, and unicorporated areas of Placer County. PCTPA’s jurisdiction does not include the Tahoe Basin, where the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) is the RTPA. References to Placer County within this report refer only to the portion of Placer County that is within PCTPA’s jurisdiction unless otherwise noted.
One of PCTPA’s duties is to administer Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, which includes the Local Transportation Fund (LTF). While public transit is the first priority for LTF funds, jurisdictions can spend it for other transportation purposes so long as there are no “unmet transit needs”. To determine whether Placer County has any unmet transit needs—and therefore whether LTF can be spent on non-transit improvements—every year PCTPA collects and analyzes comments from the public on unmet transit needs.
PCTPA Jurisdiction Map
NEVADA COUNTY
YUBA COUNTY PCTPA Lake Tahoe Colfax JURISDICTION
80
PLACER 49 COUNTY Lincoln Auburn 99 65 Loomis EL DORADO COUNTY Rocklin 80 49 Roseville
5 80 50
SACRAMENTO 80 COUNTY Sacramento
99 15 Unmet Transit Needs Report 4 5 PCTPA UTN Definition TDA and ADA Requirements PCTPA defines an unmet transit need as “an expressed or identified need, which “Unmet transit needs is not currently being met through the existing system of public transportation may include establishing, services, including needs required to comply with the requirements of the contracting for, or expanding Americans with Disabilities Act.” This definition outlines the first requirement public transportation, in a request must meet: whether the transit service requested already exists. addition to services or measures required to comply In addition to describing an unmet need, a request must be “reasonable with the Americans with to meet”. In 2014, PCTPA adopted five criteria for determining what is Disabilities Act. If, based on “reasonable to meet”. First, the requested service must not cost more to the adopted definition and implement than the amount of transit funding an operator has to spend. Second, the requested service must be able to meet the minimum required criteria, any unmet transit farebox recovery ratio, or the ratio of fare revenues to operating costs. These needs are determined to be first two criteria ensure the requested service could be implemented cost- reasonable to meet by the efficiently. Third, there must be community support for the requested service, PCTPA Board of Directors; including support from community groups and leaders, and evidence of that they must be funded in the support. Fourth, the requested service must be consistent with the goals of next fiscal year prior to any the Regional Transportation Plan. Fifth, the request service must be consistent TDA funds being allocated with goals and intent of the applicable Short Range Transit Plan(s). These final for non-transit purposes.” three criteria ensure there is general support for the requested service.
Ammended in 2014 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that all public transit buses be accessible to individuals with disabilities and that transit authorities provide origin-to-destination paratransit services to individuals with disabilities within a three-quarter mile boundary around all fixed-route transit services. According to the PCTPA unmet transit needs definition, improvements that are necessary to meet ADA requirements are considered unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet.
Using these definitions and criteria, PCTPA staff evaluate each public comment to determine whether the requested service is a) an unmet transit need and b) reasonable to meet. If it is determined that there is an unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet, state law dictates that LTF money must be used to meet that need before it can be used for non-transit services.
16 5 FY 2019 - 2020 ABOUT UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS Transit Funding 2018 LTF Allocation by Jurisdiction While the primary source of funds for public transit is the Transportation Unincorporated County $5.8 million Development Act (TDA), transit operators in Placer County use a variety of federal, state and local funding sources. The TDA provides Roseville funding under two separate statewide Total $7.8 million programs: sales-tax-funded Local $22.3 million Transportation Fund (LTF) and the Rocklin diesel-tax-funded State Transit $3.7 million Assistance (STA) fund. Because the Planning - $890,000 Unmet Transit Needs process deals Auburn - $810,000 Loomis - $390,000 only with the use of LTF funds, an Lincoln - $2.8 million analysis of STA funds is not included Colfax - $120,000 in this report. { % of LTF Spent on Transit Annually As shown in the stacked bar chart on the top left, Placer County received 100% more than $22 million dollars in LTF in fiscal year 2018. PCTPA uses a portion of the LTF to fund planning 75% Auburn efforts, and the remainder is split Combined Unincorporated among the jurisdictions according to population. Each jurisdiction may 50% then choose to spend a portion of their LTF on non-transit projects, so Lincoln long as there are no unmet transit 25% Roseville needs that are reasonable to meet. Rocklin Exactly how much is spent on streets Loomis and roads rather than transit is up to Colfax the jurisdictions, and the proportions 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 vary year-to-year depending on estimated costs, availability of other funding sources, and local spending Annual Miles of Transit Service in Placer County priorities. The line graph on the middle right shows that over the past several 3 million years, jurisdictions have tended to spend less of these transit funds on 2.5 million transit purposes. Countywide, just 33% of LTF funds were spent on 2 million transit in fiscal year 2018. Despite this decrease in LTF spent on transit, 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 the amount of service provided has increased, as seen in the line graph Measured in vehicle revenue miles and includes TART service, some of which is on the bottom right. outside PCTPA’s jurisdiction. Source: State Controller’s Office Transit Operator Data
17 Unmet Transit Needs Report 6 2018 LTF Allocation by Jurisdiction Outreach and Analysis Process The Unmet Transit Needs process began with three public workshops in Lincoln, Tahoe City, and Auburn, and a public hearing at the October PCTPA Board Meeting. While some comments were received at these events, the vast majority came through the online survey. More information regarding public outreach can be found in Appendix F. As a result of this outreach, PCTPA received 244 comments. Of those, 66 comments did not include any kind of transit request and 8 comments involved transit service outside of PCTPA’s jurisdiction, leaving 170 comments for analysis in this report.
Once received, these comments are analyzed by PCTPA staff to determine whether they are unmet transit needs and if so, whether they are reasonable to meet. Those preliminary findings and a draft version of this report are then reviewed by the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC), as required by the TDA. The SSTAC is a designated group of transit users and social service providers who review unmet transit needs requests, make unmet transit needs recommendations to the PCTPA Board of Directors, and % of LTF Spent on Transit Annually advise on transit-related issues as needed.
The SSTAC approved this report at their January 31st, 2019 meeting, found that there was one unmet transit need that was reasonable to meet, and made additional recommendations which can be found on page 10.
Following approval by the SSTAC, the unmet transit needs report and its findings were presented to the PCTPA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) at their February 12th, 2019 meeting. The TAC, which includes management- level staff from each jurisdiction, approved the report. Following approval from the SSTAC and TAC, this report and its findings were presented to the PCTPA Board of Directors at their February 27th, 2019 meeting. The Board accepted the report as complete, approved the SSTAC’s finding, and accepted the SSTAC’s recommendations. A copy of the board resolution can be found in Appendix H.
Annual Miles of Transit Service in Placer County Status of Last Year’s Recommendations Although the SSTAC found that there were no unmet transit needs that were reasonable to meet last year, they did recommend that Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) should look at opportunities to coordinate with transportation network/microtransit companies and mobile rideshare technologies to replace or supplement general public Dial-A-Ride service. Consistent with this recommendation, the SRTP investigated rideshare alternatives for each transit provider and recommended that general public Dial-A-Ride be replaced by a contract with transportation network/microtransit companies within Granite Bay. More information regarding rideshare technology and its potential within Placer County can be found in Service Alternatives chapters of the Short Range Transit Plans, which are available on PCTPA’s website: pctpa.net
18 7 FY 2019 - 2020 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE Fixed Route Service in South Placer County
70
LINCOLN 40 AUBURN Twelve Bridges Auburn Station R 50 B 20 ROCKLIN 10 R LOOMIS
S 10 M Galleria G ROSEVILLE E # Auburn Transit Bus D Civic # Placer County Transit Bus Center A Sierra L Gardens # Roseville Transit Bus B F C Transfer Point 10 Louis Orlando Operator Websites Transit Operators
Placer County Transit Placer County is served by 6 transit operators: Roseville Transit, Placer County Transit (PCT), Auburn Transit, Tahoe Truckee Area Regional Transit (TART), placer.ca.gov/pct Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (WPCTSA), and Auburn Transit Capitol Corridor. While this section aims to summarize the types of transit auburn.ca.gov/192 services offered in Placer County and the ridership on those service, more Rosevillle Transit detailed route and service information can be found on the operators websites roseville.ca.us/transit which are listed to the left. Tahoe Truckee Area Transit tahoetruckeetransit.com Transit Planning Western Placer CTSA Improvements to transit service in Placer County are governed by three pctpa.net/transit/244 transportation planning documents: the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Capitol Corridor the Long Range Transit Master Plan (LRTMP), and the Short Range Transit capitolcorridor.org Plans (SRTPs). Because the RTP, LRTMP, and SRTPs outline transit service goals and improvement project priorities for Placer County, they are referenced frequently in the responses to unmet transit needs comments.
The SRTPs were updated in 2018 and are in the process of being adopted by Placer County’s jurisdictions. These documents are the best source for comprehensive transit analysis and their executive summaries are in Appendix D. There are also two transit studies referenced in the responses to comments: the Rocklin Community Transit Study (2015) and the Placer County Rural Transit Study (2015). The executive summaries for both are also included in Appendix D. 19 Unmet Transit Needs Report 8 Interregional, Intercity, Local Service and Commuter Service Local bus service is available within Roseville, Lincoln, Auburn, and in the Tahoe Truckee area. Roseville Transit provides 11 different bus routes across Roseville Transit, PCT, and Capitol the city. PCT’s Lincoln Circulator (70) provides local service to Lincoln while the Corridor all offer transit service Highway 49 Bus (30) provides service to Auburn. Auburn Transit also has two between cities and regions. Roseville deviated-fixed bus routes across Auburn, the Red and the Blue. TART operates Transit offers Commuter Bus service three fixed routes: the Hwy 267 Bus provides service between Truckee and between various pickup locations in Kings Beach, the Hwy 89 Bus provides service between Truckee and Tahoe Roseville and Downtown Sacramento City, and the Mainline Bus runs along the lake from Incline Village to Sugar as well as a Gameday Express Pine. Following national trends, ridership on all these local routes continues service to Sacramento Kings games. to fall following a peak during the recession, as shown in the line graph below. PCT’s Auburn/Light Rail Bus (10), Alta/Colfax Bus (40), Taylor Road Shuttle (50), and Sierra College/ Demand-Response and Paratransit Service Lincoln Bus (20) routes all provide Each transit operator provides some form of demand-response bus service connections between different cities where riders can preschedule pickups and drop-offs from locations other and towns in Placer County while than the fixed route bus stops. While some operators offer this service to the PCT’s Placer Commuter Express general public, riders with disabilities who require paratransit service are given provides commuter service between priority in these services. PCT offers general public Dial-A-Ride and paratransit pickup locations along Interstate service in Lincoln, Rocklin, Granite Bay, Loomis, and anywhere within a three- 80 and Downtown Sacramento. quarter mile of Taylor Road or Highway 49. Roseville Transit offers general Capitol Corridor provides train and public Dial-A-Ride and paratransit service across the city. Auburn Transit thruway bus service from the Auburn, provides deviated-fixed service—meaning buses will deviate from their fixed Rocklin, and Roseville Stations to routes upon appointment—for general public and paratransit riders anywhere Sacramento and the Bay Area. The within a three-quarter mile of their fixed routes. TART provides paratransit many comments regarding commute service within a three-quarter mile of their fixed routes. service in Appendix A reflect the growing popularity of transit commute WPCTSA offers two social service transit services: Health Express and My options. Rides. Health Express provides service for seniors and people with disabilities to non-emergency medical appointments. Health Express is available in most of southern Placer County. Countywide, My Rides provides service to non- emergency medical appoints for seniors, people with disabilities, and families with children under 5, but is a volunteer service and therefore is dependent on volunteer availability. Both My Rides and Health Express require that passengers be approved before scheduling their first ride.
Annual Transit Ridership in Placer County
1.25 million
1.2 million
1.15 million 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Note: Includes all TART service, some of which is outside PCTPA’s jurisdiction. Note: Does not include Capitol Corridor ridership Source: State Controller’s Office Transit Operator Data 20 9 FY 2019 - 2020 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Finding Service Between In accordance with TDA requirements, PCTPA staff analyzed comments Rocklin and Lincoln submitted by the public and developed recommended findings according to A member of the public requested PCTPA’s adopted unmet transit needs definitions: service between Lincoln and Sierra College in Rocklin for someone who 1. There are new unmet transit needs in FY 2018/19 that are reasonable to is physically unable to ride fixed route meet for implementation in FY 2019/20: buses (see comment 156). While PCT Service between Lincoln and Rocklin for someone who is physically currently provides paratransit and unable to use the Placer County Transit Lincoln/Sierra College fixed- Dial-A-Ride service in Lincoln and in route is a new unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet. Placer Rocklin, it does not offer demand- County, Lincoln, and Rocklin will work together to ensure that individuals response service between those two who meet this criterion can be served by Dial-A-Ride services between cities, making this request an unmet Lincoln and Rocklin. Data will be collected for 24 months for this transit need. The Placer County modified service and analyzed to determine the feasibility ofthis Transit Short Range Transit Plan modified service, the number of the requests for service by jurisdiction recommended that the Lincoln and and location, and the best operational methods for implementation. Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride areas be The SRTP recommends a broader effort of combining the Lincoln combined to improve service in this and Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride areas for all passengers. However, area. Providing this service is not the larger project is not considered part of this unmet transit need anticipated to cost more than the that is reasonable to meet. The feasibility of combining the Lincoln relevant jurisdictions’ LTF allocations. and Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride areas will require additional study to As a result, this unmet transit need estimate the impacts to passenger wait times, ride times, trip denials, is considered reasonable to meet in cost, and funding shares from Placer County, the City of Lincoln, the fiscal year 2019-2020. City of Rocklin and the Town of Loomis. PCTPA, Placer County Transit, the City 2. That the Annual Unmet Transit Needs Report for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 is of Lincoln, the City of Rocklin, and accepted as complete. the Town of Loomis began working together to solve this problem in January 2019 and will continue Existing Service Between Lincoln and Rocklin this partnership to implement this service change. Next year’s Unmet Transit Needs Report will include a 20 Lincoln discussion of how this unmet need DAR Area was met in fix in fiscal year 2019- Operated by PCT 2020.
Twelve Bridges
Rocklin/Loomis DAR Area Operated by PCT 20 80
65 20 Sierra College
Galleria
21 Unmet Transit Needs Report 10 Analysis of Comments The stacked bar chart to the right shows how often commenters ride transit. As How Often Do You Ride Transit? with most years, the two largest groups are daily transit riders and people who have never ridden transit before. Of those commenters that do ride transit, 45.4% use PCT, 42.5% use Roseville Transit, 18.8% use Capitol Corridor, 9.5% use Auburn Transit, and 4.4% use Health Express. There were four common Daily - 29% requests across the comments received: requests for existing service, requests for service in newly developed areas, requests for improvements to commute service, and requests for rural lifeline service. The full list of comments Weekly - 15% received and responses to each comment can be found in Appendix A. Monthly - 7% As in most years, PCTPA received many comments requesting service that already exists. This reflects both a need for more public education around Annually - 18% transit and the fact that many commenters are not transit riders. The responses to these comments include brief descriptions of how to make these requested trips on existing transit resources. Never - 31% PCTPA also received many comments requesting expansions of service in Rocklin and West Roseville. While both of these areas are served by the cities’ general public Dial-A-Ride services, there are growing requests for more fixed- route and commuter service in these newly developed areas. Both Roseville and Rocklin continue to monitor the need to expand service in these areas.
With high ridership on both Roseville’s Commuter Bus service and PCT’s Placer Commuter Express, it is not surprising that so many comments were submitted regarding commuter service. Many of these commenters noted that commuter buses are currently so full that riders must stand, and made requests for additional runs. PCTPA will look comprehensively at commuter transit service as part of its upcoming Placer-Sacramento Corridor Mobility Plan.
Requests were submitted for new service or more frequent service to rural areas in Placer County like Foresthill, Sheridan, Alta, and Newcastle. Currently, estimated ridership in these areas is not high enough to make these kinds of improvements cost effective, but PCTPA will continue to monitor these trends.
22 11 FY 2019 - 2020 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC COMMENTS & RESPONSES The table below includes every comment received as part of the Unmet Transit Needs outreach for fiscal year 2019- 2020. The first column from the table includes the comment received from the public. In most cases the comment is printed exactly as received, but in rare cases it was summarized to save space or remove personal information. The second column includes one of four findings: this is not an unmet transit need, this unmet transit need is not reasonable to meet, or this unmet transit need is reasonable to meet. The third column includes an explanation for how PCTPA staff and the SSTAC determined whether a request was an unmet transit need that was reasonable to meet. In many cases the explanations refer to various transit plans, all of which are available on the PCTPA website pctpa.net. The fourth column lists the jurisdictions relevant to each comment (‘County’ refers to the unicorporated areas of Placer County).
The comments are listed in the table according to six categories: Operational Comments about buses, stops and fares; Scheduling Comments about delays and service frequency; New Service Comments with requests for service between two locations; Service Area Comments with requests to alter existing routes; and Miscellaneous Comments. Within each category, the comments are sorted by finding with “this is not an unmet need” first and “this unmet need is reasonable to meet” last.
Operational Comments
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdictions 585 Sacramento Street is served by Au- burn Transit’s deviated-fixed route service. While there is a bus stop at McAuley meadows, There is a bus stop on Sacramento Street seniors need door to door service as Dial-A- right outside McAuley Meadows. Those This is not Ride. Seniors have mobility issues and isolation who need to be picked up or dropped off 1 an unmet Auburn has negative impact. Seniors E14 want to walk closer to the building should request para- need. to the bus stop or lack confidence/know-how to transit service in advance so that the ap- navigate bus system propriate vehicle will be available. Not all Auburn Transit buses can make the tight turns in the McAuley Meadows complex. Most of Luther Road is within Auburn I live in Luther Road. There is no public trans- Transit’s deviated-fixed route service portation around here. I see people walking area. This service allows residents to down Luther Road. It’s dangerous. No room to This is not schedule pickups and dropoffs anywhere Auburn 2 walk and cars going fast. A public transporta- an unmet with in 0.75 miles of the Auburn Transit County tion would be great. I need to get everywhere in need. bus routes. You could use this service to auburn, downtown old town, and target for daily reach many destinations within the City of living without depending on a car Auburn. Regarding Roseville Transit - Need longer/ deeper bus shelters at commuter stops.Fix the online bus tracker. It used to work beautifully but now is useless. Drivers should keep the two-way radio turned down. AC is either full- This is not Operations issues are not considered un- 3 blast freezing or non-existent. an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville Some drivers need to be trained to drive more need. will be forwarded to the transit operators. smoothly - not slamming on brakes so much, anticipate slow downs. Overall the commuter service is very good and mostly reliable. Wi-fi would be a nice addition.
23 Unmet Transit Needs Report 12 Operational Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdictions The sunsplash shelter needs to be expanded to hold more people. This is needed especially in winter when it is raining. it is miserable to wait in pouring rain, even with an umbrella. Also the buses are ALWAYS late by 5 to 15 minutes. I want to be to work on time but your buses are determined to make me late. If i take an earlier bus, then I am 30 minutes before I start work. In the afternoon, I take commuter 2 home, but This is not Operations issues are not considered un- if it is 5 minutes late, then all the people who 4 an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville would normally take bus 3 get on 2 and now it need. will be forwarded to the transit operators. is too full for me to have a seat and standing sucks. Also, please get a better bus tracking system. The one you are now using is horrible. It does not track, it only predicts and it is usu- ally wrong. The buses themselves need a defi- nite upgrade. All of the windows are drafty or let in water if it is raining. The escape hatches in the roof usually leak as well and make all of the surrounding seats damp. This is not Operations issues are not considered un- Would like to see the 10 ride general discount 5 an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment All fare available on the Connect Transit Card need. will be forwarded to the transit operators. I appreciate the new app that was created to let one know where the buses are in relation to the stops. Excellent step forward. Also, the This is not 6 ability to purchase an electronically generated an unmet The comment does not describe a need Roseville ticket card (Read about it bu forgot its name) need. Please continue the efforts to make the system customer friendly! Best progress thus last year Recently, the Roseville Commuter system changed the Bus Tracker feature. Prior it used to show all buses and their locations in real time by a minute or two. Now the feature does not allow you to see all buses in route at the This is not Operations issues are not considered un- same time, you have to select one route. And, 7 an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville the tracker either does not update at all or up- need. will be forwarded to the transit operators. dates every 15-20 minutes. This does not help me when I am trying to get to my bus stop a half mile away from my building. The old tracker worked great so I am not sure why it changed, and not for the better. I am a Rocklin resident and typically use the Fares issues are operational and not Roseville bus service. Living in Rocklin I am considered unmet transit needs, but will This is not required to pay extra as a non-resident. Can we be forwarded to the operators. The Short Rocklin 8 an unmet work something out with your friendly neighbors Range Transit Plans do not recommend Roseville need. in Rocklin? Also if we can do that, it would be adding any additional runs to the Placer nice to have extra commuter stops in Rocklin. Commuter Express Service from Rocklin. This is not Operations issues are not considered un- 9 It would be beneficial to add WI FI to the buses. an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville need. will be forwarded to the transit operators.
24 13 FY 2019 - 2020 Operational Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdictions This is not Operations issues are not considered un- 10 Would like wifi on roseville transit an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville need. will be forwarded to the transit operators. Fares issues are operational and not I myself do not use public transportation, but considered unmet transit needs, but will the population we serve struggles with trans- This is not be forwarded to the operators. However, 11 portation in placer county. A discounted/ in- an unmet All WPCTSA’s Bus Pass Subsidy program come qualifying system for low income individu- need. does provide discount bus passes to par- als would help greatly. ticipating social service organizations. This is not Operations issues are not considered un- bus shelter at Market and Rothbury on the M 12 an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville Route need. will be forwarded to the transit operators. Fare issues are operational and not rode FAST (Fairfield and Suisun Transit) where This is not considered unmet transit needs. However, 13 offer free fare for 80+ Seniors; suggested an unmet All this comment will be forwarded to the Placer County could do the same need. transit operators. This is not Operations issues are not considered un- Request bench at bus stop at Eskaton on 14 an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville Pleasant Grove need. will be forwarded to the transit operators. This is not Operations issues are not considered un- Add shelter to stop at Vintage Square for 15 an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville weather protection need. will be forwarded to the transit operators. This is not There is a bus stop at Woodcreek Oaks 16 Request return bus stop at Heritage Oaks Apt an unmet Blvd and Junction Blvd, just outside Herit- Roseville need. age Oaks Apartments. Request our Route M Bus move it’s timed stop at the Vintage Apts to the church a few blocks This is not Operations issues are not considered un- 17 down, when bus idle’s at Vintage the exhaust an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville carries into the apartments causing residents need. will be forwarded to the transit operators. headache/nausea. This is not Operations issues are not considered un- Have Rsvl Sports Ctr & Maidu have access to 18 an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville load cash value to the connect card. need. will be forwarded to the transit operators. This is not Operations issues are not considered un- Move bus shelter near Country club & Junction 19 an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville to D route near Apts. need. will be forwarded to the transit operators. This is not Operations issues are not considered un- Please add a shelter to the bus stop on pleas- 20 an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville ant grove between fiddyment and monument need. will be forwarded to the transit operators. The Roseville Transit D Bus does have a This is not Request to bring back the stop Country Club/ stop at Junction Boulevard and Country 21 an unmet Roseville Junction next to the Apts. Club Drive and the Roseville M Bus will need. deviate to that intersection upon request. Wayne Tilden stopped by today to suggest that we have bus schedule posted in the bus shel- This is not Operations issues are not considered un- ters. He suggested that at least the schedule 22 an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville of the bus that comes to that particular stop. need. will be forwarded to the transit operators. He said that people are always asking, “what time does the bus come?” Shelters at all stops, keep lights working in This is not Operations issues are not considered un- 23 shelters, esp. at Pleasant Grove and Wood- an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville creek need. will be forwarded to the transit operators.
25 Unmet Transit Needs Report 14 Operational Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdictions There is a bus stop at Cirby Way and Sun- This is not rise Avenue, just 0.1 miles from the Social Add a stop at Social Security office on Cirby, 24 an unmet Security Office on Cirby Way. Destinations Roseville east of Sunrise Blvd. need. within 0.75 miles of a bus stop are con- sidered to have transit service. Roseville Transit recently made an adjust- ment to its Dial-A-Ride policies and will now serve general public passengers at Macys and Nordstrom anytime out- side the holdiay shopping season (Nov 24 - Jan 2 ). During the holiday season, This is not Roseville general public Dial-A-Ride will Request to have DAR drop off/pick up at 25 an unmet only serve passengers at Nordstroms. Roseville Macy’s along w/Nordstrom. need. PCT Dial-A-Ride only serves Nordstrom all year around. Both Roseville Transit and PCT’s paratransit services are origin to destination, so paratransit passengers are eligible for pickup and dropoff wher- ever they need it within the service area boundaries. Operations issues are not considered un- Request for bench at Blue Oaks/Woodcreek This is not met transit needs. However, this comment Oaks on D route. She has a bad back and has 26 an unmet will be forwarded to the transit operators. Roseville to sit on the ground for 30 minutes waiting for need. The Short Range Transit Plans do not the bus. Currently it is stop 18. recommned adding a shelter to this stop
Scheduling Comments
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdictions I would like see more bus pickups and returns at the Louis/Orlando transfer station. Currently the buses mostly pick up at and drop off at the Taylor road park and ride which is on the other The current Roseville Commuter Bus side of the city for people who live off Cirby and Schedule is designed to meet the needs Foothills. It takes almost as long to drive back This is not of most riders. While the Short Range to our side of town as it does to get back from 27 an unmet Transit Plans suggest adding two AM and Roseville downtown. Yet only one bus returns to Louis need. two PM commuter routes, the exact timing Orlando, the very first one. I can’t leave work and pickup locations for those routes will that early. It would nice to add a few departures be determined by the operators. and returns, especially one that left downtown between 4:30-5. It’s such a nice new transit center that it’s a pity we can’t use it more widely. Currently, you could take the Placer County Transit Auburn/Light Rail Bus I need to go from Sierra Colleg to Downtown (10) from Sierra College to the Watt/I-80 This is not Sacramento so I can walk to the bus stop every Light Rail Station and trasfer to the Blue 28 an unmet Rocklin day. My main concern is arriving downtown Light Rail Line to Downtown Sacramento. need. closer to 9am during my morning commute. This service is available hourly, including a route that would arrive downtown at 8:48am on weekdays.
26 15 FY 2019 - 2020 Scheduling Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdictions Currently, you could make this trip on pub- lic transit by taking the Roseville Transit A Bus from Sunrise and Douglas Boulevards I need to go from Roseville douglas and 80 to the Louis/Orlando Transit Center, then This is not area to arden and watt SA. Reverse I work 12 taking the PCT 10 Bus to Watt/I-80, then 29 an unmet Roseville to 9 in sac. some of us go to jobs in sac off the taking the Sac RT 84 bus to Watt Avenue need. usual commite times and Arden Way. If you left at 10:15am from Roseville, you would get there by 11:40am and then you could return leav- ing at 9:20pm. The Short Range Transit Plans have Commuter Bus #3am is overly full. Most days This is not taken into account the popularity of Rose- 30 we have standing room only. I would also like to an unmet ville’s Commuter Bus routes and recom- Roseville see more PM stops at Saugstead Park. need. mend adding an additional two AM and PM routes to relieve this. Worsening traffic conditions and late bus de- partures have caused the Roseville Commuters This is not Operations issues are not considered un- 31 to be late almost every day (AM routes 9 and an unmet met transit needs. However, this comment Roseville 10 and PM routes 7 and 8). Departure times need. will be forwarded to the transit operators. may need to be reevaluated? Generally, I reach the stop at 15th & H at 5:10- 5:15, but the Roseville Transit No. 8 is gone by then and the no. 9 is chronically late, so I’ve Comments regarding delays are consid- This is not also been using Placer Commuter Express, but ered operational and are therefore not un- 32 an unmet Roseville that doesn’t arrive until 5:25-5:30. ment transit needs, but will be forwarded need. on to the operators. It would be nice to have 1 late bus, say 6 pm. That’s a huge hole in service. I need to go from Roseville to UCD Med Center; From the Louis/Orlando Transit Center in 2315 Stockton Blvd for work. I do not under- Roseville there are multiple options to get stand why trips to this side of the freeway to UC Davis Medical Center, including tak- This is not are considered adequately covered between ing the Sac RT 21 Bus to Folsom and then 33 an unmet Roseville commuter busses, Sac RT, and light rail. Has taking the Gold Light Rail Line, or taking need. anyone timed it out??? Not convenient. Yes, we the Sac RT 93 Bus to the Watt/I-80 Light do shift work, but seems like there is some op- Rail Station and then taking the the Blue portunity for reverse commutes, etc. Light Rail Line. Roseville buses are currently overcrowded where there is standing room only. Some of the drivers park at the Sunsplash parking lot and do not pull up to pick up riders until the time that the bus is supposed to depart, The current Roseville Commuter Bus which causes the bus to run late when arriv- Schedule is designed to meet the needs ing in downtown Sacramento. For many years of most riders. While the Short Range during the rainy season, repairs for leaks are Transit Plans suggest adding two AM and requested by customers repeatedly, but never This is not two PM commuter routes, the exact tim- 34 completed and causes wet seats that cannot an unmet Roseville ing and pickup locations for those routes be used and water dripping on customers. need. will be determined by the operators. The Buses are old and have bad suspension which exact timing and pickup locations of these creates a bumpy ride. Drivers cannot feel the added routes will be determined by opera- air temperature of the passenger area and a tors. lot of times the buses are either very cold or very hot and there doesn’t seem to be an easily accessible temperature control, as I see drivers having to go to the back of the bus to adjust temperature. 27 Unmet Transit Needs Report 16 Scheduling Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdictions We are having an issue with Bus 7 being 10-15 minutes late picking up at 8th and Capitol every night. I know that it differs depending on driver Comments regarding delays are consid- and I switched to this route because when This is not ered operational and are therefore not un- 35 Jack drove it was never late; you could set your an unmet Roseville ment transit needs, but will be forwarded watch by it. Now it is routinely passed by no. need. on to the operators. 8, which is supposed to be 20 minutes behind it. And 6 always leaves on time because my schedule causes me to just miss it. The PCT Auburn/Light Rail Bus (10) con- nects Roseville to Sacramento via the I need to go from Sunsplash to Light Rail and Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station every hour. Watt I-80. Another issue I see that the Rose- You could take the Roseville A Bus to ville transit ‘Commuter Card’ can not be used Louis/Orlando Transit Center, take the in light rail as they do not accept the Roseville This is not Auburn/Light Rail Bus (10) from Louis/ 36 Commuter Card. Make it Common across all an unmet Orlando to Watt/I-80 and then take the Roseville Transit across Sacramento. This will allows the need. Blue Light Rail Line into Downtown Sac- passengers to use their card any where without ramento. Additionally, the Short Range paying additional fee. ( Placer express, Rose- Transit Plan recommends adding two AM ville Commuter or Light rail etc) and two PM Roseville Commuter buses, but the timing and stops of those runs will be determined by operators. The Roseville Transit B Bus provides service from the Galleria to Vernon and Grant Streets. That intersection is about a I need to go from Rosevile Square to the Gal- half mile walk from the Roseville Square This is not leria Mall for shopping and to get to route M. shopping center. Destinations within 0.75 37 an unmet Roseville Too long of a trip to have to transfer just to go miles of a bus stop are considered to need. up the road a way. have transit service. If you need direct ori- gin to destination service, Roseville also offers General Public Dial-A-Ride through- out the city. I need to get from Truckee to Tahoe city for work. I work for Placer County. Currently I can- Route schedules are designed to meet not get to work on time/leave after my shift as the majority of needs for riders. Currently, the route starts after/ends before. If I took the TART’s Mainline provides service from bus I would be late every day, and have to leave Truckee to Tahoe City starting at 7:30 and early. Who is the bus for??? Most people in from Tahoe City to Truckee at 4:50. The this area don’t even have traditional 9-5 M-F This is not Short Range Transit Plans do not suggest 38 jobs like I do. If you work at the resorts, you an unmet County expanding service times for this route. have to be there early in the morning. If you need. This comment has also been shared with work at a restaurant you have to be there late Nevada County Transportation Commis- in the evening. It’s ridiculous, sad, embarrass- sion and Tahoe Regional Transportation ing, and unbelievable that our public transit Agency due to the many jurisdictions in serves no one. It’s a sham. Either get rid of it all the Tahoe Basin. together and stop wasting out tax money on it or make it work for people. Currently, Roseville Transit Dial-A-Ride serves West Roseville, including where This is not you live. The Roseville Transit Short Range I need to go from my home in West Roseville to 39 an unmet Transit Plan proposes this area be the Roseville Downtown Roseville. need. focus of a Transit Master Plan as further development planning is finished for that area.
28 17 FY 2019 - 2020 Scheduling Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdictions The Yuba Sutter commuted has a midday bus. Implementing midday Roseville commute I would love Roseville to have one, too. If I have This unmet service requires further study and will be a morning or afternoon appointment my only need is not a part of PCTPA’s Placer-Sacramento Cor- 40 option is to drive all the way downtown and pay Roseville reasonable ridor Mobility Plan which begins in early $12 for parking. A midday bus would solve that to meet. 2019. The recommendations for that plan problem entirely. Plenty of my fellow riders have are expected to be available early 2020. expressed interest in that also. Implementing midday Roseville commute service requires further study and will be Mid day bus would be fantastic at 12:00 noon. a part of PCTPA’s Placer-Sacramento Cor- Also the old buses leak when it rains and the ridor Mobility Plan which begins in early This unmet A/C doesn’t work well during the summer. The 2019. The recommendations for that need is not 41 new buses seem smaller and don’t hold as plan are expected to be available early Roseville reasonable many people as the old ones. The bus stop 2020. Comments regarding buses, stops, to meet. cover at taylor and 80 is very small considering and customer service are operational in the lines of people that wait in the rain. nature and not considered unmet transit needs, but will be passed on to the opera- tors. Implementing midday Roseville commute This unmet service requires further study and will be I need to go from Downtown Sacramento to need is not a part of PCTPA’s Placer-Sacramento Cor- 42 Roseville at Taylor I-80. Some commuters work Roseville reasonable ridor Mobility Plan which begins in early half days. to meet. 2019. The recommendations for that plan are expected to be available early 2020. I need to go from West Roseville to Downtown Currently, only Roseville Transit Dial-A- Sacramento for Work It would be nice to have Ride serves West Roseville. The Roseville later options for the Roseville commuter bus. Transit Short Range Transit Plan proposes THe last bus that leaves Roseville in the morn- This unmet this area be the focus of a Transit Master ings is 7:30am from Saugstad. If there were need is not 43 Plan as further development planning Roseville a bus that left at 7:45am or 8am from either reasonable is finished for that area. Additionally, Taylor and 80 or from somewhere in West Rose- to meet. Roseville offers Commuter Bus Service to ville I would take the bus much more often and Sacramento with three daily pickups and my coworker would too. We wish there were dropoffs at Mahany Park in West Roseville slightly later bus times. 1) at least once per week I use Light Rail to The current Roseville Commuter Bus accommodate later departure in mornings. 2) Schedule is designed to meet the needs This unmet Would like to see more of the Roseville Com- of most riders. While the Short Range need is not 44 muter buses going to Maidu Park. I live within Transit Plans suggest adding two AM and Roseville reasonable walking distance but with only two choices in two PM commuter routes, the exact timing to meet. AM and PM it limits my flexibility for work sched- and pickup locations for those routes will ule. be determined by the operators. The current Roseville Commuter Bus Schedule is designed to meet the needs of most riders. While the Short Range This unmet Transit Plans suggest adding two AM and Roseville transit needs either more buses or need is not two PM commuter routes, the exact tim- 45 earlier buses for rides to Taylor and i80 at Roseville reasonable ing and pickup locations for those routes 3:45pm to meet. will be determined by the operators. The exact timing and pickup locations of these added routes will be determined by opera- tors.
29 Unmet Transit Needs Report 18 Scheduling Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdictions The current Roseville Commuter Bus 0620 #4 R’Ville Commuter @ Taylor stop has Schedule is designed to meet the needs standing 1 - 10+ on Tue.,Wed.,Thurs. on a regu- This unmet of most riders. While the Short Range lar basis when school starts. need is not 46 Transit Plans suggest adding two AM and Roseville Could use one more @0610 or 0630. reasonable two PM commuter routes, the exact timing I have also seen people standing on the #1 to meet. and pickup locations for those routes will Placer Bus on the same days. be determined by the operators. I think there should be another bus between commuter 8 and 9, 10. Right now the time difference between 8 and 9 is about 30 mins, which is a big gap for early morning commute. The Roseville Commuter Bus routes and If 9 or 10 would leave Roseville 15 mins earlier schedule are designed to be cost effec- than currently scheduled, it would allow many tive and meet the needs of most riders. commuters to start their workday at 8:00 vs This unmet The Short Range Transit Plan determined 8:30, which would allow them to get off at 4:30 need is not 47 that two additional runs in the morning Roseville vs 5:00. Getting off at 4:30 allows commuters reasonable and evening are needed. The scheduling to be home at least an hour earlier and would to meet. and pickup locations for those additional save at least 30 mins of being stuck in 5pm routes will be determined by the transit traffic. Right now someone who gets on the bus operators. at 7:31 in the morning, doesn’t come back to roseville until after 6:00 pm. If the bus would leave at 7:15, that same person could be home by 5:10 The Roseville Commuter Bus routes and I need to go from Taylor Park and Ride to Watt schedule are designed to be cost effec- I-80 Station to connect to downtown. Later tive and meet the needs of most riders. commuter bus route to downtown (7:45 or 8 This unmet The Short Range Transit Plan determined am) would be helpful, but the most important is need is not 48 that two additional runs in the morning Roseville later service from downtown to Roseville. If you reasonable and evening are needed. The scheduling miss the last bus (5:30 or so at my stop), you’re to meet. and pickup locations for those additional stuck taking the blue line and roundabout routes will be determined by the transit buses that get you back around 8 pm. operators. Wish there were more Placer Commuter Buses to Downtown Sacramento. I typically pay extra to take the Roseville Commuter just because The current Placer Commuter Express This unmet the Placer Commuter tends to be very full or schedule is designed to meet the needs need is not County 49 there is too big of a time gap between the 6:35 of most riders. The Short Range Transit reasonable Roseville bus at Sunsplash and the 7:00 bus. It gets Plans do not suggest adding any addition- to meet. frustrating also when the #3 bus typically runs al runs at this time. late in the afternoon. Most times it seems like it’s 5-10 minutes late, but sometimes more. Implementing midday Roseville commute she feels that we should change the schedule This unmet service requires further study and will be for commuters for the day before thanksgiving need is not a part of PCTPA’s Placer-Sacramento Cor- 50 because all state workers get off work at noon Roseville reasonable ridor Mobility Plan which begins in early on that day. We should arrange for the buses to meet. 2019. The recommendations for that plan to do noon pick ups. are expected to be available early 2020. The current Roseville Commuter Bus Schedule is designed to meet the needs This unmet of most riders. While the Short Range Request Comm service later than 5:30pm from need is not 51 Transit Plans suggest adding two AM and Roseville downtown Sac to Rsvl. reasonable two PM commuter routes, the exact timing to meet. and pickup locations for those routes will be determined by the operators.
30 19 FY 2019 - 2020 Scheduling Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdictions Implementing midday Roseville commute This unmet service requires further study and will be Request the day before big holidays to have need is not a part of PCTPA’s Placer-Sacramento Cor- 52 com bus service Sac for early released State Roseville reasonable ridor Mobility Plan which begins in early workers (around noon to 1pm). to meet. 2019. The recommendations for that plan are expected to be available early 2020. The Roseville Commuter Bus routes and schedule are designed to be cost effec- tive and meet the needs of most riders. Commuter bus #4 am is always packed with This unmet The Short Range Transit Plan determined standing room only several times a week. When need is not that no additional commuter stops were 53 the routes get re-evaluated it would be help- Roseville reasonable needed in Roseville, but that two addi- ful to add a second bus around the same time to meet. tional runs in the morning and evening departing from Sunsplash. are needed. The scheduling and pickup locations for those additional routes will be determined by the transit operators. The Game Day Express Schedule is de- This unmet signed to be cost-effective and meet the Request for Game Day Xpress to run back from need is not 54 needs of most riders. The Short Range Roseville Sac at 1am. reasonable Transit Plans do not suggest altering this to meet. schedule. The Short Range Transit Plans do not I need to go from downtown lincoln to sierra This unmet suggest expanding service hours for the college. Needs to be earlier morning and later need is not Lincoln Circulator. Comments regarding Lincoln 55 evening service 6am-7pm on the Lincoln Circu- reasonable fares are operational and not considered Rocklin lator. The student discount passes should apply to meet. unmet transit needs, but will be passed to GED and Adult high school students on to transit operators Please add more trips for the R route. It cur- rently only has 2 morning and 2 late afternoon trips. I need to travel down Foothills to the Bel Air shopping center daily in the mid afternoon. The current Roseville R Bus schedule Also please add Sunday service. People need This unmet is designed to be cost effective while to go to church and Roseville dial a ride needs need is not 56 meeting the needs of most riders and the Roseville more drivers on Sunday. We also need later reasonable Short Range Transit Plan does not recom- service on Saturday to go back and forth to to meet. mend adding any additional runs. the Galleria,on the M bus, since prime holiday shopping is coming up and also more employ- ees have been hired for the holiday shopping at the Galleria. The current Roseville L and E Bus sched- The Roseville transit L and E buses need to This unmet ules are designed to be cost effective stop running @ 9:30pm or 10pm I highly use need is not and meet the needs of most riders, and 57 them to get me to and from work when I work Roseville reasonable the Short Range Transit Plan does not late shifts. We all know that Uber and Lyft is to to meet. recommend adding later runs to the L or Expensive to use every day, E routes. Current Roseville Transit bus schedules This unmet are designed to be cost effective and Instead of going to Game Day Express, extend need is not meet the needs of most riders. The Short 58 hours of local fixed route into Downtown Rose- Roseville reasonable Range Transit Plan does not suggest ville for travel to Downtown activities/culture to meet. eliminating Game Day Express or exteding the hours of local route service.
31 Unmet Transit Needs Report 20 Scheduling Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdictions Where I live in Eastern Placer Co outside colfax there is only one bus a day to Auburn and This unmet According to the recently completed SRTP, i returning. This means spending an entire need is not a midday bus to Alta/Colfax would not 59 County day away from home. Whys can’t there be a reasonable attract sufficient ridership to meet PCT’s 10 - 12:00 oclock bus route from from Alta to to meet. farebox ratio standard of 12.94% Auburn or something like it? Need midday trips between Colfax and Auburn so you don’t have to waste a whole day in Au- This unmet According to the recently completed SRTP, burn for appointments. Also need the evening need is not a midday bus to Alta/Colfax would not Colfax 60 service to be later (5:30 or 6) so that someone reasonable attract sufficient ridership to meet PCT’s County could actually commute for a business hours to meet. farebox ratio standard of 12.94% job from Colfax to Auburn.
New Service Comments
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction Currently, Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor train and thruway bus provide daily service between Auburn Station and Sacramento This is not Valley Station. You could also take the PCT I need to go from Auburn to Sacramento fre- 61 an unmet Auburn/Light Rail Bus (10) from Auburn Auburn quently, during the day need. Station to the Watt/I-80 Light Rail Sta- tion and then use Sacramento Regional Transit Bus and Light Rail connections to reach Downtown Sacramento. Light Rail extensions were studied in the early 2000s but elected officials chose to focus improvements on Commuter Bus I need to go from Sierra College to 12th and I This is not service and Capitol Corridor. Currently, 62 in downtown sac for work. Light Rail should be an unmet Rocklin you could take the PCT Auburn/Light extended to Roseville or Rocklin. need. Rail Bus (10) from Sierra College to the Watt/I-80 Station and then take the Blue Light Rail Line to 12th and I Station. Light Rail extensions were studied in the early 2000s but elected officials chose to This is not I need to go directly from Rocklin to 12th and I focus improvements on Commuter Bus 63 an unmet Rocklin in sac. It is time to extend light rail to Roseville service and Capitol Corridor. Currently, you need. could take the Placer Commuter Express from Rocklin to Downtown Sacramento. The current Commuter Bus drop-off I need to go from East Roseville - Sun Splash to locations in Downtown Sacramento are Downtown Sacramento more convenient drop This is not located to meet the needs of most riders. 64 offs for work. limited drop off stops too far to an unmet Relocating stops and adding new stops Roseville be convenient except the rare times I have little need. in Downtown Sacramento is difficult due take home work to space constraints in Downtown Sacra- mento’s streets. This is not Roseville Commuter Bus service includes Need direct commuter from Mahany Park / 65 an unmet 3 morning and 3 evening buses between Roseville Westate Roseville to Sacramento. need. Mahany Park and Downtown Sacramento.
32 21 FY 2019 - 2020 New Service Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction Currently, you could take PCT Dial-A-Ride from Rocklin Station to Sierra College, I need to go from my neighborhood at Rocklin This is not then take the Roseville Transit E Bus to Rocklin 66 High School to Kaiser Permanente in Roseville an unmet Kaiser Permanente. Neither the Short Roseville so that I could avoid ever driving to work. need. Range Transit Plans nor the Rocklin Community Transit Study recommended expanding service in Rocklin. Currently, it would take two buses within I need to go from Lincoln to Auburn for work. the PCT system to get from Lincoln to It would take multiple bus transfers between This is not Auburn. The Lincoln/Sierra College Bus different bus systems and over 1 & 1/2 hours Auburn 67 an unmet provides service from Lincoln to the Gal- of travel time to use public transit for my com- Lincoln need. leria, where you could transfer to the Au- mute when it takes approximately 30 minutes burn/Light Rail Bus which goes to Auburn to drive by car. Station. Currently, PCT Dial-A-Ride Service is avail- able to all Lincoln residents, including those in Sun City Lincoln Hills. You could There is no public transit where I live in Sun take Dial-A-Ride to the Twelve Bridges City Lincoln Hills. There are bus stops however. This is not Transfer Point by the Library and then 68 But no service. It would be beneficial that have an unmet transfer to the PCT Lincoln/Sierra Col- Lincoln service in Lincoln for short stops to medical, need. lege Bus (20) which goes to the Galleria. shopping and dining in Lincoln and Roseville Health Express service is also available to Lincoln Hills residents who are over the age of 60 for non-emergency medical appointments. Where do I begin, is more the question. After using Sacramento & Yolo County Transit Services for so many years, & then moving to Placer County in the Roseville area, I was quite Locations within 0.75 miles of a bus stop shocked at the huge difference in the service. are considered to have transit service, Placer County has a long way to go in the tran- as such Gibson drive is served by the sit services. Sacramento, Yolo and Placer coun- Galleria Transfer point. From there, you ties need to work together to expand the light This is not could take one PCT Auburn/Light Rail Bus rail system out to Placer County. Also, expand 69 an unmet (10) to the Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station Roseville the bus service back on Gibson Drive, instead need. and transfer to Sac RT’s system. Light of people having to walk at least a half mile to Rail extensions were studied in the early the Galleria Transit Center to catch a bus! Why 2000s but elected officials chose to focus can’t the Dial-A-Ride service go to the I-80 light improvements on Commuter Bus service rail station, instead of having to transfer to a and Capitol Corridor. Placer bus to get to the station to go downtown Sacramento? If the bus service would improve, there would be much less traffic on the Rose- ville streets. The traffic is crazy! Currently, it is possible to make this trip on public transit by taking Dial-A-Ride or I need to go from 165 Valleywood way to taylor This is not the Roseville Transit S Bus to the Roseville Rocklin 70 rd and sunset for auto maintenance every six an unmet Galleria, and then taking the PCT Lincoln/ Roseville months. need. Sierra College Bus (20) to Pacific Street (Taylor) and Sunset Boulevard.
33 Unmet Transit Needs Report 22 New Service Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction Currently it is possible to make this trip on public transit by taking Amtrak Capitol Corridor from Roseville Station to Sacra- This is not mento Valley Station or by taking the PCT I need to go from Roseville to South Sacramen- 71 an unmet Auburn/Light Rail Bus from the Galleria Roseville to for shopping and seeing friends. need. to the Watt/I-80 Light Rail station. There, you can transfer to the Sac RT bus and Light Rail system which serves much of Sacramento, including South Sacramento. Sun City Roseville is served by Roseville Transit’s Dial-A-Ride service, which you could take to Roseville Station and then take Amtrak Capitol Corridor to Down- This is not I need to go from Roseville sun City to Sacra- town Sacramento. You could also take 72 an unmet Roseville mento for Shopping and entertainment. Dial-A-Ride to the Galleria Transfer Point, need. then take the PCT Auburn/Light Rail Bus (10) to the Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station, and then take the Blue Light Rail Line to Downtown Sacramento. It is possible to make this trip on public transit by taking the Roseville Transit B Bus from 6th Street and Riverside Avenue to the Louis/Orlando Transit Center, then I would like to depart at my home at 514 This is not taking the Sac RT 93 bus from Louis/Or- 73 Dudley, Roseville and go to W Sacramento and an unmet lando to the Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station, Roseville return the same day to my home. need. then taking the Blue Line Light Rail from Watt/I-80 to the Capitol Mall and 8th Street, and then finally taking Yolo County 41 Bus from 8th and Capitol into West Sacramento. There are several options to get from Downtown Roseville to Downtown Sac- ramento. You could take Amtrak Capitol I need to go from Downtown Roseville to corridor, take Roseville Commuter bus, or This is not Downtown Sacremtno once or twice a year for take the Roseville B Bus to the Louis/Or- 74 an unmet Roseville birthday celebrations. the game Day Bus and lando Transit Center. From there, you can need. drivers are great take the PCT Auburn/Light Rail Bus (10) or the Sac RT 93 Bus to the Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station and then take the Blue Line Light Rail into Sacramento. Roseville offers Game Day Express buses from the Civic Center to the Golden 1 I need to go from Lincoln to Golden One Center This is not Center. The Game Day buses leave an Lincoln 75 in Sacramento for Kings Games during basket- an unmet hour and 15 minutes before tipoff. The Roseville ball season. need. Short Range Transit Plans did not recom- mend expanding this service to other cities.
34 23 FY 2019 - 2020 New Service Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction Currently, the PCT Lincoln/Sierra College -Need direct Lincoln to Roseville transit bus provides direct service from Twelve -Supportive of UTN process but needs to be Bridges Library in Lincoln to the Galleria in part of a larger movement towards transit Roseville. Comments regarding transpor- - Need transit connections to the airport tation plans and sales taxes do not reflect - 1991 Roseville transit study needs to be This is not unmet transit needs. The Short Range Lincoln 76 reviewed an unmet Transit Plans and statewide rail plans do Roseville - Capitol Corridor needs to be expanded to need. not recommend expanding Capitol Cor- Lincoln ridor to Lincoln. The Short Range Transit - Aiport to Casino Service Plans do not recommend adding service - Sierra Club would support a 0.25 cent sales to the Sacramento airport, including from tax for expanding transit service Thunder Valley Casino. I need to go from Grape St in Roseville to the It is possible to get between Roseville Arden Mall for possible career opportunities. and Sacramento destinations with only My biggest issue with transit is that even if one trasfer. To do so, you would take I get a Dial-A-Ride (I’m visually impaired so Roseville Dial-A-Ride from your home to that’s an easy solution for me) I still can’t get to California Burger on Auburn Boulevard at Sacramento destinations because there is no This is not the Placer/Sacramento County border. 77 coordination between Placer County Dial-A-Ride an unmet From there you would take Sacramento Roseville and the similar service in the Sacramento area. need. Paratransit to your final destination. While If I could use make a single transfer and use Roseville does general public Dial-A-Ride, both county’s service for the disabled I would Sacramento County only provides rides use it all the time. Please work with Sac County for registered disabled riders. Both the to make career opportunities more accessible Roseville Dial-A-Ride and Paratransit trips to those of us who can’t or don’t drive. would need to be scheduled in advance. The Amtrak Capitol Corridor train provides daily service between Roseville Station, Sacramento, and the Bay Area. The Louis/ Orlando Transit Center in Roseville also I would love to utilize public transit. I need to go This is not has multiple regional bus connections from Roseville to Sacramento, Folxom, Auburn, 78 an unmet including the Sac RT 21 Bus to Rancho Roseville and San Francisco to visit friends and for fam- need. Cordova where you can take the Gold ily/shopping and entertainment. Light Rail Line to Folsom and the PCT Auburn/Light Rail bus to Watt/I-80 wher eyou can take the Blue Light Rail Line to Downtown Sacramento. There is a bus-stop at Del Webb & Spring Valley. I have never once seen a bus there. There is Currently, Placer County Transit Dial-A- apparently no service in or through Sun City at Ride service is available between Sun City all. Local Shuttle Service would probably find This is not Lincoln Hills and Downtown Lincoln. Fixed 79 numerous riders here if it ran sufficiently often an unmet Lincoln service used to be provided in Sun City and had stops near enough to residences that need. Lincoln Hills, but was eliminated due to old people like me could actually get there! I low ridership. need it to go to old town lincoln for restaurants and shopping. Currently, PCT Dial-A-Ride serves all of Lincoln, including Sun City Lincoln Hills. This is not I am concerned about future needs of Sun City Health Express Service to and from non- 80 an unmet Lincoln Lincoln Hills residents for transit as they age emergency medical appointments is also need. available to Sun City Lincoln Hills resi- dents who are over the age of 60.
35 Unmet Transit Needs Report 24 New Service Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction Currently, there are multiple options to get from Rocklin Station to Natomas and Ran- cho Cordova. You could take eith Amtrak’s Captiol Corridor or Placer Commuter Express from Rocklin Station to Downtown I need to go from the Rocklin Amtrak Station This is not Sacramento and then take Sacramento 81 to Natomas or Rancho Cordova for offsite work an unmet Rocklin Regional Transit’s Downtown-Natomas and training need. Bus (11) to Natomas or the Gold Light Rail Line to Rancho Cordova. The Louis/Or- lando Transit Center in Roseville also has multiple regional bus connections includ- ing the Sac RT 21 Bus to Rancho Cordova Currently, you could take the Placer Com- This is not muter Express Bus from Rocklin Station I need to go from Rocklin Amtrak station to 82 an unmet to the 13th Street Station in Downtown Rocklin Folsom for work need. Sacramento and then take the Gold Light Rail Line to Folsom. Currently, you could make this trip on pub- I need to go from Roseville Sunsplash to This is not lic transit by taking the Roseville Transit A 83 Rancho Cordova because I work in that area an unmet Bus from Sunsplash to the Louis/Orland Roseville occasionally. need. Transit Center, then taking the Sac RT 21 bus to Rancho Cordova. Currently, it is possible to make this trip I need to go from Roseville at Saugstad Park or This is not on public transit by taking the Roseville 84 Sunsplash to Rancho Cordova and Folsom and an unmet Transit A Bus from Sunsplash to the Roseville Bradshaw for work. need. Louis/Orlando Transit Center, and then taking the Sac RT 21 Bus to Folsom. Currently it is possible to make this trip on public transit without going through Down- I’d like to get from Roseville to Rancho Cordova This is not town Sacramento. The Sac RT 21 bus 85 without having to go through Sacramento. Time an unmet Roseville provides direct service every 30 minutes is money. need. between the Louis/Orlando Transit Center in Roseville and Rancho Cordova. Currently, there is no direct service be- tween Roseville and Pleasanton. However, This is not I need to go from Roseville to Pleasanton for you could take Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor 86 an unmet Roseville work. from Roseville Station to the Coliseum/ need. Airport BART station and then take the BART blue line to Pleasanton. Currently, you could take Amtrak Capitol Corridor from Roseville Station to Sac- ramento Valley Station, then take the Yuba-Sutter Transit’s 99 Bus to Marysville. This is not You could also take PCT’s Auburn/Light I need to go from Roseville to Marysville for 87 an unmet Rail Bus (10) from Louis/Orlando Transit Roseville work. need. Center to the Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station, then take the Blue Light Rail Line to 8th and O Streets, and then take the Yuba- Sutter 99 Bus from 9th and P Streets to Marysville.
36 25 FY 2019 - 2020 New Service Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction Currently, you could take the Amtrak Capitol Corridor train from Auburn Station I need to go from Auburn or Sacramento to the This is not to Sacramento Valley Station. From there, 88 Colorado Mountails for birdwatching [summa- an unmet Auburn the Amtrak California Zephyr Train goes to rized] need. Colorado, including stops near the moun- tains in Granby, Fraser, and Denver. Amtrak Capitol Corridor provides daily ser- I need to go from Roseville to San Fransciso for vice between Roseville and the Bay Area theatre, museums, shopping, and other activi- This is not with multiple opportunities to transfer to ties. Although you already have no drinking and 89 an unmet the BART subway system. Comments on Roseville no food, can you also include no gum. Unfor- need. food policies are operational in nature tunately, people chew and smack their gum on and not considered unmet transit needs, the bus currently. Thank you. but will be forwarded on to operators. It is possible to make this trip on public transit by taking the Roseville D Bus from This is not I need to go from Blue Oaks to Pleasant Grove Blue Oaks and Woodcreek Oaks, then Rocklin 90 an unmet and 65. taking the M bus from Woodcreek Oaks Roseville need. and Pleasant Grove to Pleasant Grove and Highway 65. Bridgeway is not in the City of Rocklin. I need to go from my home in Rocklin to Bridge- However, It is possible to make this trip way Christian Churc so I wouldn’t have to de- This is not on public transit by taking Placer County Rocklin 91 pend on others to take me. There needs to be an unmet Dial-A-Ride to the Galleria Mall and then Roseville two buses running simultaneously in Rocklin, need. taking Roseville Dial-A-Ride to Bridgeway CA for Rocklin Dial-a-Ride. Church. There is a disabled client attending Choices Tahoe Truckee Area Regional Transporta- Day Program in Truckee. He lives in Tahoe City This is not tion (TART) began providing paratransit 92 and needs transportation to and from his day an unmet County service between Choices and Tahoe City program on a daily basis. need. on October 15, 2018. [summarized] I need transportation daily to my Day Program Choices from Tahoe City. I am intellectually dis- abled with Down Syndrome. There are several Tahoe Truckee Area Regional Transporta- other clients attending Choices Day Program This is not tion (TART) began providing paratransit 93 that need transportation. I need curb to curb an unmet County service between Choices and Tahoe City service because I cannot “navigate” or identify need. on October 15, 2018. my correct bus stop. Alta Regional Center will pay for my transportation costs. I need trans- portation on a regular subscription basis. Currently, Placer County Transit provides service from intersection of Bell and I need to go from my home at bell and New New Airport Roads to various destina- Airport to downtown and old town Auburn, tions around Auburn via the Highway 49 Sacramento, and beyond. We’ll never grow at This is not Bus (30) and Dial-A-Ride. From Auburn Auburn 94 the speed the BOS would like without awe- an unmet Station, you could take the Placer County County some public transport. Why isn’t there regular, need. Transit Auburn/Light Rail Bus (10) to the county-provided rail? Why is service so limited Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station to reach Sac- in the foothills? ramento or take Amtrak Capitol Corridor to reach Sacramento and the Bay Area.
37 Unmet Transit Needs Report 26 New Service Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction The parking lot outside the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District Offices at 11603 Donner Pass Road serves as a Dial-A- Ride lot. The TART 89 Bus picks up a half I need to get from Glenshire to Squaw Valley for This is not mile away outside the DMV on Highway 95 work. I would also use the bus if there was a an unmet 89 and provides service to Squaw Valley. County park & ride in Truckee (savemart) need. This comment has also been shared with Nevada County Transportation Commis- sion and Tahoe Regional Transportation Agency due to the many jurisdictions in the Tahoe Basin. Currently, you could take the PCT Tay- I need to get from newcastle to Sacramento to lor Road Shuttle (50) from Newcastle Volunteer on weekends at the California Rail- Highway and Taylor Road to Sierra College This is not road Museum. At present there is only one train then take the PCT Auburn/Lightrail Bus 96 an unmet County per day to/from Auburn-sacramento and these (10) to Watt/I-80 and then take the Sac need. trains are not compatible with my volunteer RT Light Rail/Downtown Bus (15) to the activities California Railroad Museum. This service is available on Saturdays. This is not Currently, the PCT Colfax/Alta Bus (40) I need to get from Dutch Flat to Auburn for Auburn 97 an unmet provides morning and evening service shopping and medical appointments. County need. between Dutch Flat and Auburn. Because your home is beyond the Health I need to get from rural areas outside colfax Express and Dial-A-Ride boundaries, your to Auburn for medical appointments. I do not best option is to use My Rides. The My need it now. However, I look ahead and know Rides Program is a volunteer based ser- that if I need to go to an appointment, I would vice available to need transportation out to meet the bus at the This is not eligible Placer County residents to get to Auburn 98 freeway. I likely could get a neighbor to take an unmet destinations they would not otherwise County me out and come get me. Some people might need. be able to access due to the unavail- not. I wondered what facility there is for people ability of public transit service. For more who live a distance from a bus stop to get to a information for scheduling a ride call bus. Are they more van like so they can go in to 1‐800‐878‐9222 or visit http://sen- pick up people or are they on public roads only? iorsfirst.org/sf-programs/transportation The WPCTSA Short Range Transit Plan does not recommend expanding the Health Express service area. My Rides is currently available across Placer County, Health Express and My Rides should serve but is dependent on volunteer availability. the Tahoe area, Dial-A-Ride information Needs This comment has also been shared with This is not to be in doctors offices and Physical therapy Nevada County Transportation Commis- 99 an unmet County offices, There Needs to be more room on TART sion and Tahoe Regional Transportation need. buses for visitors to store beach stuff, skis, Agency due to the many jurisdictions in picnic baskets when riding the Tahoe Basin. Comments regarding schedules and bus sizes are operational in nature and not considered unmet transit needs, but will be forwarded to operators. It is possible to make this trip on public transit by taking the PCT Taylor Road Shut- This is not tle (50) from Newcastle and Taylor Roads I need to go from Newcastle to Downtown Sac- 100 an unmet to Sierra College, then taking the Auburn/ County ramento for Events. need. Light Rail Bus (10) to the Watt I-80 Light Rail Station, and then taking the Blue Line Light Rail to Downtown Sacramento. 38 27 FY 2019 - 2020 New Service Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction Tahoe Truckee Area Regional Transporta- This is not I need to go from Tahoe City to Truckee daily to tion (TART) began providing paratransit 101 an unmet County attend Choices Day Program for special needs service between Choices and Tahoe City need. on October 15, 2018. Currently, Roseville Transit Dial-A-Ride serves West Roseville, including Fiddy- This is not ment Farms. The Roseville Transit Short I need to go from Fiddyment Farms multiple 102 an unmet Range Transit Plan proposes this area Roseville places for shopping and appointmets etc. need. be the focus of a Transit Master Plan as further development planning is finished for that area. Currently, Roseville Transit Dial-A-Ride serves West Roseville, including Fiddy- This is not ment Farms. The Roseville Transit Short I need to go from Fiddyment Farms to the Gal- 103 an unmet Range Transit Plan proposes this area Roseville leria for the ease of not having to drive need. be the focus of a Transit Master Plan as further development planning is finished for that area. There is no direct service between Placer County and the Sacramento International This unmet I want to go from Somewhere off I80 with park- Aiport. In fact, there is no transit service need is not 104 ingz to because Do not have to use long-term to the airport from El Dorado, Sacramen- Roseville reasonable parking at airport to, Sutter, or Yuba Counties either. The to meet. Short Range Transit Plans to not suggest adding such a service. I want to go from Roseville Galleria to Sacra- mento International Airport for personal travel or a future job at the airport. I’m originally from the Boston area and there are multiple regional coach bus companies providing bus service to the airport from various cities and suburbs to There is no direct service between Placer bring personal and business travelers in but it County and the Sacramento International This unmet also brings workers to the airport. I’m legally Aiport. In fact, there is no transit service need is not 105 blind. I don’t drive. I depend on public transpor- to the airport from El Dorado, Sacramen- Roseville reasonable tation and when systems like health express to, Sutter, or Yuba Counties either. The to meet. only runs a few days a week to a certain end Short Range Transit Plans to not suggest of town or busses stop running at 730 my life adding such a service. has to stop or I need to find a replacement ride. Please invest in mass transit. Take lessons from Boston the oldest mass transit system in the country. Build it and they WILL come . Please increase service don’t cut it! There is no direct service between the I need to go from Roseville Square to the Sacra- This unmet Roseville Square shopping center and mento Waldorf School to attend school. I would need is not the Sacramento Waldorf School and the 106 Roseville like to see public transportation available over reasonable Short Range Transit Plans do not propose county lines and be consistent. to meet. expanding service between Roseville and Fair Oaks. This unmet Implementing commuter service to Lin- I need to go from Lincoln to Connect to the need is not coln is a mid range recommendation in 107 Lightrail system in sacramento to Commute to Lincoln reasonable the Short Range Transit Plan and requires work to meet. further study
39 Unmet Transit Needs Report 28 New Service Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction This unmet Implementing commuter service to Lin- There needs to be a direct connection between need is not coln is a mid range recommendation in 108 Lincoln and downtown Sacramento for commut- Lincoln reasonable the Short Range Transit Plan and requires ers. to meet. further study Currently, Roseville Transit Dial-A-Ride This unmet serves West Roseville, including West- I need to go from West Park to Sacramento need is not park. Additionall, Roseville offers Com- 109 Roseville near Garden Highway and I5 for work. reasonable muter Bus Service with three daily to meet. pickups and dropoffs at Mahany Park in West Roseville. Currently, only Roseville Transit Dial-A- Ride serves West Roseville. The Roseville I need to go from West Roseville to Downtown Transit Short Range Transit Plan proposes This unmet Sacramento for work. West Roseville is be- this area be the focus of a Transit Master need is not 110 ing built up. So many people on my crowded Plan as further development planning Roseville reasonable Saugstad commuter buses come from West is finished for that area. Additionally, to meet. Roseville. Roseville offers Commuter Bus Service to Sacramento with three daily pickups and dropoffs at Mahany Park in West Roseville The Placer Commuter Express schedules I need to go from Colfax to Roseville for my are designed to meet the needs for a daily commute. Special commuter buses that This unmet majority of riders and the Short Range are non-stop or limited stops to remain time need is not Colfax Rose- 111 Transit Plans do not suggest providing efficient would be great! I need to depart from reasonable ville more direct service between Colfax and Colfax and be in Rocklin by 7:30 a.m., and I to meet. Rocklin, as it would not be cost effective leave Rocklin @ 5:30 p.m. or meet farebox recovery requirements. This unmet There is currently no public transit service I need to go from vintage oaks development in need is not to the Vintage Oaks area of Auburn and Auburn 112 Auburn to Downtown Roseville for work. reasonable the Short Range Transit Plans do not sug- Roseville to meet. gest adding such a service. The current PCT bus routes and sched- I need to go from Rocklin and Sunset and ules are designed to be cost effective Atherton Road to Lincoln. I get off work at This unmet and meet the needs of most riders. The 8:00pm and I would greatly appreciate being need is not Lincoln 113 Short Range Transit Plan does not call for able to use public transit to get home from reasonable Rocklin extending the service hours of either the work. Specifically the 70 (Lincoln Circulator) to meet. Lincoln Circulator or the Lincoln/Sierra and 20 (Sierra College) routes College routes. Replying on behalf of low-income customers and business customers along Industrial and While the PCT Lincoln/Sierra College Bus surrounding areas. Industrial Blvd. has many stops at Sunset and Industrial Avenues, employers who are struggling to find entry-level and the Roseville Transit S Bus stops at staff. Entry-level staff are often low-income This unmet the Santucci Justice Center. The Short and lack reliable transportation. The route need is not County 114 Range transit plans do not suggest adding along Industrial is fragmented and doesn’t reasonable Roseville a fixed route to this area. However, Placer meet the needs of those employers especially to meet. County is currently updating the Area Plan since many have non-traditional shifts. This for South Industrial Avenue and will look is a problem for Lincoln, Rocklin and Roseville at options to improve transit service there. residents and businesses plus those business- es in the SIA. [Summarized]
40 29 FY 2019 - 2020 New Service Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction It is possible to make the trip from Rose- ville to Sacramento using existing transit routes, including the PCT Auburn/Light This unmet Rail (10) and Sac RT 21 Buses which Request Roseville provide buses to Sacramento need is not connect to the Watt/I-80 Light Rail station 115 Annual Museum Day http://sacmuseums.org/ Roseville reasonable and the Amtrak Capitol Corridor, which museums/ to meet. provides daily service between Roseville and Sacramento. The short Range Transit Plans do not suggest adding a specific service for Musuem Day. I need to go from Roseville to Chico or Wheat- This unmet There is no direct transit connection be- land to go to Chico State. Love public transit need is not tween Roseville and Chico or Wheatland 116 - giving people options to be mobile without Roseville reasonable and the Short Range Transit Plans do not owning a vehicle or providing transportation to to meet. suggest adding such a service. people who are not physically able to drive. Would like to travel to San Francisco and make Amtrak Capitol Corridor provides daily the trip in less than two hours. Also would like train service from Auburn to the Rich- to have better and more direct tours through This unmet mond BART station, where you can take Auburn area. Currently the routing of Auburn need is not 117 the subway into San Francisco. This trip Auburn transit and some of the placer transit buses are reasonable takes about 3.5 hours and there are no extremely confusing and difficult for average to meet. regional or state plans to provide faster person to understand. Also schedules are not service between Auburn and the Bay Area. very coordinated. There is no direct transit connection This unmet between Lincoln and San Francisco need is not 118 I need to go from Lincoln or Sacramento to SFO International Airport, nor do the Short Lincoln reasonable Range Transit Plans suggest adding such to meet. a service. I need to go from Wilderness way in Rocklin All of Rocklin is served by PCT Dial-A-Ride to 1050 sunset in Rocklin. There are many which is available to the general public. residential areas on Wildcat Blvd. and areas The Rocklin Community Transit Study north of it in Rocklin that do not have bus (2015) determined that adding a second This unmet service available. This could be done by going local bus route would not be cost effec- need is not 119 up University, turning right on Whitney Ranch tive and the Short Range Transit Plans Rocklin reasonable Parkway and then turning left on Wildcat Blvd. also do not recommend adding such a to meet. and then continuing on it to Joiner Parkway and service. This situation will continue to be then to Twelve Bridges Library, and then on to monitored as development occurs and the casino for a single stop instead of the two densities may support expanded service stops it gets currently. [summarized] in the future. Currently, PCT Dial-A-Ride serves all areas of Rocklin including this trip. Federal I need to go from Rocklin road and Pacific This unmet transit regulations prohibit public tran- street to Whitney high school. Quite a few of need is not 120 sit routes that only serve schools. The Rocklin us parents wish pct would run to and from the reasonable Rocklin Community Transit Study (2015) high schools in Rocklin to meet. concluded that the current service op- tions are the most cost effective.
41 Unmet Transit Needs Report 30 New Service Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction All of Rocklin is served by PCT Dial-A-Ride I need to get from 711 University Ave to Sierra which is available to the general public. College. We are in a full community out here, The Rocklin Community Transit Study houses, apartments, schools and have abso- (2015) determined that adding a second This unmet lutely no bus transportation. we need dial-a- local bus route would not be cost effec- need is not 121 ride or bussing. I have to get to work, my son tive and the Short Range Transit Plans Rocklin reasonable to and from Sierra College and my daughter to also do not recommend adding such a to meet. and from work. Education and employment are service. This situation will continue to be necessary needs in life and we are unable to monitored as development occurs and have transportation. [summarized] densities may support expanded service in the future. All of Rocklin is served by PCT Dial-A-Ride which is available to the general public. The Rocklin Community Transit Study (2015) determined that adding a second This unmet local bus route would not be cost effec- I need to get from 711 University Ave to Sierra need is not 122 tive and the Short Range Transit Plans Rocklin College. reasonable also do not recommend adding such a to meet. service. This situation will continue to be monitored as development occurs and densities may support expanded service in the future. I need to get from my home in rocklin to sierra college to get more education and job training. Currently there is a lack of local transit and All of Rocklin is served by PCT Dial-A-Ride neighborhood connectivity to major destina- which is available to the general public. tions within our county. People cannot make The Rocklin Community Transit Study choices on how to get around without becoming (2015) determined that adding a second car centric. Our transit corridors are crowded This unmet local bus route would not be cost effec- and only operate to shuttle driver to already need is not 123 tive and the Short Range Transit Plans Rocklin crowded freeways. If our local transit lines reasonable also do not recommend adding such a were more readily available to service local to meet. service. This situation will continue to be neighbors then motor vehicles would not be monitored as development occurs and so demanding upon ailing infrastructure and densities may support expanded service individuals and on our local environment. Our in the future. transit needs should include local streetcars, buses and bicycling to shopping hubs, work locations and colleges. All of Rocklin is served by PCT Dial-A-Ride which is available to the general public. Currently no regular bus service to the Whitney The Rocklin Community Transit Study Ranch apartments even though there are lots (2015) determined that adding a second This unmet of people living there who need it. I need to local bus route would not be cost effec- need is not 124 go lots of places but Sierra College especially. tive and the Short Range Transit Plans Rocklin reasonable There are only two dial-a-ride buses for Rocklin also do not recommend adding such a to meet. and there are lots of cancellations and rejec- service. This situation will continue to be tions. monitored as development occurs and densities may support expanded service in the future.
42 31 FY 2019 - 2020 New Service Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction Currently, Placer County Dial-A-Ride serves all Rocklin residents and could be used to reach destinations on Lonetree This unmet request for stop on Lonetree near movie thea- Boulevard. The Rocklin Community Transit need is not 125 tres. Has many clients that needs transporta- Study (2015) concluded that the current Rocklin reasonable tion to their insurance business service options are the most cost effec- to meet. tive and the Short Range Transit Plans also do not suggest expanding service to Rocklin. I need to go from Miners Ravine Dr and Sierra Colleg to Hilltop Circle in Roseville. if the trip This unmet There is currently no public transit service was completed within 30 minutes i’d take pub- need is not to the Hilltop Circle area of Roseville and 126 Roseville lic transit, but if the bus trip to work took over reasonable the Short Range Transit Plans do not rec- 30 minutes i’d just drive. it take me 16 minutes to meet. ommend expanding service to this area. to get to work in my car. This unmet According to the recently completed SRTP, Foresthill has needed public transportation for need is not bus service to Foresthill would not attract 127 County years. Please consider adding it to your routes. reasonable sufficient ridership to meet PCT’s farebox to meet. ratio standard of 12.94% I need to get from rural Lincoln on upper Wise Rd to Roseville from Mt Vernon Rd to visit Kai- Currently, Health Express provides service ser Clinic and the Galleria Mall. The flat open for seniors and persons with disabilities country side will gradually fill p with subdivi- This unmet from the rural Upper Wise Road area to sions making it more difficult to get around with need is not non-emergency medical appointments. County 128 a car especially i one is elderly. reasonable However, there is no service between this Roseville Uber and other services are available now so to meet. area and the Roseville Galleria and the connections with local credible taxi like ser- Short Range Transit Plans do not suggest vices would be required in case of unexpected adding such a service. delays. [summarized] While the PCT Alta/Colfax Bus (40) provides morning and evening service I need to get from Meadow Vista to Auburn for This unmet between Auburn and Meadow Vista, it work. Would like M-F, 7:30 from MV to Auburn; need is not does not serve exactly those times (leaves Auburn 129 and 5:15 Auburn to MV service. I work in Old reasonable Meadow Vista around 8:30am and leaves County Town, would love to leave from someplace close to meet. Auburn at 4:15 pm). The Short Range to there. Transit Plans do not suggest expanding this service. This unmet According to the recently completed SRTP, Auburn I need to go from Foresthill to Auburn Rocklin or need is not bus service to Foresthill would not attract County 130 Roseville for appointments and church. reasonable sufficient ridership to meet PCT’s farebox Rocklin to meet. ratio standard of 12.94% Roseville I need to go from Country Acres Ln to the Rose- This unmet There is currently no public transit service ville libraries. I would like to see more available need is not to the rural Elverta area of Placer County County 131 resources for the Placer County residents that reasonable and the Short Range Transit Plans do not Roseville live in rural areas, like myself. to meet. recommend adding such a service. This unmet According to the recently completed SRTP, Sheridan currently has no transit service and need is not bus service to Sheridan would not attract 132 County would like service reasonable sufficient ridership to meet PCT’s farebox to meet. ratio standard of 12.94%
43 Unmet Transit Needs Report 32 New Service Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction I am a program manager at KidsFirst. Some of the complaints we have heard about public This unmet According to the recently completed SRTP, transportation is that it is only available in larg- need is not bus service to Foresthill would not attract 133 er communities and outliers like Forest Hill or County reasonable sufficient ridership to meet PCT’s farebox Meadow Vista are not connected with the rest to meet. ratio standard of 12.94% of Placer Co. People without transportation in those areas remain isolated because of this. This unmet According to the recently completed SRTP, Auburn I need to go from Foresthill to Auburn or Rose- need is not bus service to Foresthill would not attract 134 County ville for medical appointments. reasonable sufficient ridership to meet PCT’s farebox Roseville to meet. ratio standard of 12.94% I would like to go from Sheridan to Auburn for work. There are just a few people that work for This unmet According to the recently completed SRTP, the County that live in the Sheridan/Marysville need is not bus service to Sheridan would not attract Auburn 135 area. But there is likely many other non-County reasonable sufficient ridership to meet PCT’s farebox County workers in the area who might use the service to meet. ratio standard of 12.94% if provided. I do work 9/80 7am-4:30pm so I know this also makes it difficult for transit. There is currently no transit service to I need to go from 8000 foothills blvd to n lake- This unmet rural Loomis and neither the Short Range shopre blvd. need option to bring bike along. need is not 136 Transit Plans nor the The Placer County County This would be my option to get home if my bike reasonable Rural Transit Study (2016) suggest adding breaks / if it rains hard to meet. such a service. All of Roseville is served by Dial-A-Ride I need to go from West Roseville to Sutter Ro- which could be used to make the trip from seville for appointments. Have never been able This unmet West Roseville to Sutter Roseville Medical to use local transit because it is not close to my need is not Center. The Roseville Transit Short Range 137 neighborhood. When I asked about it I was told Roseville reasonable Transit Plan proposes this area be the to attend meetings. I have the impression ser- to meet. focus of a Transit Master Plan as further vices are not important to our area even though development planning is finished for that we pay exorbitant property taxes. area.
Service Area Comments
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction I work and need to get there by 9 am. This is not possible as the bus runs every 2 hours and it takes over an hour from 585 Sacramento St. to get to my job which is 10 minutes away by 585 Sacramento Street is served by Au- car. This is because there is only one bus going burn Transit’s deviated-fixed route service. in one direction and it takes over an hour for There is a bus stop on Sacramento Street me to get where I need to go. Dial a Ride does right outside McAuley Meadows. Those not come to my address at 585 Sacramento St. This is not who need to be picked up or dropped off 138 I am 75 years old and partially blind. The Public an unmet Auburn closer to the building should request para- Transportation here is terrible. I want to move need. transit service in advance so that the ap- back to Sacramento County where the service propriate vehicle will be available. Not all is better. Auburn Transit buses can make the tight
turns in the McAuley Meadows complex. I do not understand why McAuley Meadows is not serviceds by Dial a Ride as it is a building full of the elderly who cannot easily get around by the Auburn bus. Shame on you.
44 33 FY 2019 - 2020 Service Area Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction I live at McAuley Meadows low income senior apartments located at 585 Sacramento St. in Auburn, CA. While there is a city bus stop located relatively close to our building many of the residents have difficulties with using it. The bus schedule is inconsistent in that it runs ev- 585 Sacramento Street is served by Au- ery two hours starting at 6 am until 10 am and burn Transit’s deviated-fixed route service. hourly thereafter until 3:00 pm at which time it There is a bus stop on Sacramento Street runs every two hours again. That makes it very right outside McAuley Meadows. Those difficult for seniors who may find it beyond diffi- This is not who need to be picked up or dropped off 139 cult to make doctor’s appointments around the an unmet Auburn closer to the building should request para- bus schedule. Part of the problem is that there need. transit service in advance so that the ap- are not enough buses so that it takes 1 hour to propriate vehicle will be available. Not all get from out building down to the bus station to Auburn Transit buses can make the tight change buses to get to where they need to go. turns in the McAuley Meadows complex. It usually winds up taking them at least a half a day to go where they need to go and come back. Many of the bubus stops do not have a bench where people can sit down which is not even possible for many seniors. This email is to advocate for Dial-A-Ride to this building. Currently, there are two options to get to Downtown Sacramento from the Gal- leria Transfer Point, which is just a half I want to go from Gibson Drive to Downtown mile from Gibson Drive. Roseville Transit Sacramento for work. I see empty buses all the provides Commuter Bus service between This is not time in Roseville and am disappointed that I Dowtown Sacramento and the Galleria 140 an unmet Roseville can never use the bus. I love the idea of it, but Transfer Point. You could also take Placer need. it just doesn’t go where I need to in a timely County Transit’s Auburn/Light Rail Bus fashion. (10) from the Galleria Transfer Point to the Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station and tranfer to the Blue Light Rail Line to Downtown Sacramento. Roseville offers Commuter Bus Service from the Galleria Mall to Downtown I need to go from Roseville Galleria Mall to Sacramento. Amtrak Capitol Corridor also Sacramento AMTRAC Station for Downtown provides direct service between Roseville pleasure, bay area visits via AMTRAC. Roseville This is not Station and Downtown Sacramento. Ad- 141 Dial-a-Ride is a great service! Wish I could use an unmet ditionally, Health Express provides service Roseville it for Sac downtown medical visits, and Sac AM- need. to non-emergency medical appointments TRAC staton. I have used it often to Roseville for seniors and people with disabilities. Sutter Medical Center. Health Express provides service to Sacra- mento medical appointments on specific days of the week. Currently, the Roseville Transit E and G buses provide direct service between Si- erra College Boulevard/Olympus drive and I need to go from Sierra College Blvd- Olympus This is not the Sierra College Campus. The Roseville Rocklin 142 or La Croix to Sierra Community College and an unmet Transit G and E buses also provide service Roseville Maidu Library for work and school. need. between Cavitt Stallman (0.75 miles from Olympus Drive) and Rocky Ridge/ Douglas (0.3 miles from Maidu Library).
45 Unmet Transit Needs Report 34 Service Area Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction In addition to Dial-A-Ride service, cur- rently, the Roseville Transit E and G buses I need to go from Granite Bay to Roseville for provide service from Sierra College and This is not work, shopping, and medical appointments Douglad Boulevards in Granite Bay to the County Ros- 143 an unmet every day. The Dial A Ride service for Granite Sierra Gardens Transfer Point in Roseville, eville need. Bay is very limited. where it is possible to transfer to mutliple other bus routes reaching many parts of Roseville. 8th and Q is within 0.75 miles of a bus Service Used to go to 8th and Q in Lincoln and stop, as such it is considered as having the circulator should be rerouted to go back transit service. The Short Range Transit there. When the buses kneel they blow hot Plans do not suggest changing this route air and dust into my face. That release should This is not as schedules and routes are designed to blow elsewhere on the bus. You should be 144 an unmet meet the needs of the majority of riders. Lincoln able to load money onto a connect card with need. Comments regarding cleanliness and cash on board. The buses need to be sanitized operation of buses and stops are opera- nightly. There needs to be a bus in Rocklin to tional in nature and therefor not unmet RC Wiley on Blue Oaks. The bus drivers break transit needs, but will be passed along to too hard outside the Galleria Mall operators. I need to go from the fountains to Roseville Parkway and Pleasant grove for Roseville HIgh School. I wish there was no bus line from Currently, there is a bus that runs this the Fountains which then went up Roseville route. The Roseville Transit B bus runs Parkway.My son sometimes misses the school This is not from Reserve Drive and Roseville Parkway bus and has to walk an hour up Roseville 145 an unmet outside the Fountains to Tiger Way and Roseville parkway and pleasant Grove. He could walk to need. Atlantic Street near Roseville High School. the Fountains and take the bus from there. I The A bus runs the reverse direction for would like a bus to go to Sacramento for State returning back to the Fountains. employees at lunch time for when we work half days. I need to drive to work if I need to get some sooner. While there is no transit service at the in- tersection of Olympus and La Croix, there is a bus stop a half mile walk away at the intersection of Olympus and Roseville I need to go from Olympus and LaCroix to the Parkway. Locations within 0.75 miles of This is not TJMaxx Shopping Center and Kaiser. There is a a bus stop are considered to have transit 146 an unmet Roseville bus turn-out at the northwest corner of Olym- service. You could make the trip to Kaiser need. pus Dr.& LaCroix by taking the Roseville L Bus from Olym- pus and Roseville Parkway to Eureka and Douglas, just ouside Kaiser. If you stay on the L Bus, it will take you to Douglas and Rocky Ridge, just outside TJ Maxx. Currently, Roseville Transit Dial-A-Ride Add service further to the west on Pleasant serves West Roseville, including West Grove Boulevard… they want this extension it so This is not Pleasant Grove. The Roseville Transit 147 “those darn teenagers” don’t have to use the an unmet Short Range Transit Plan proposes this Roseville Vintage Square pickup. (Not the best reason need. area be the focus of a Transit Master I’ve heard of for extending transit J) Plan as further development planning is finished for that area.
46 35 FY 2019 - 2020 Service Area Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction Gibson Drive is just a half mile walk from the Galleria Transfer Point. Destinations This is not within 0.75 miles of a transit stop are con- 148 Re-instate service at Gibson Dr stops an unmet Roseville sidered to have transit service. The Short need. Range Transit Plans do not recommend adding stops on Gibson Drive. Roseville’s general public Dial-A-Ride is This is not available anywhere within the city limits. Request DAR boundary to expand at Vinyard 149 an unmet The north side of the intersection of Vine- Roseville and Riesling for The Vineyard Homes. need. yard Road and Riesling Drive is therefore already eligible for Dial-A-Ride Service. I ride the commuter express from Taylor I-80 to downtown daily. The morning routes are gener- ally good and on time, however a later direct route that does not stop in Roseville after 6:55 The current Placer Commuter Express would be nice. Is there a way to split the 7:18 schedule is designed to meet the needs and 7:23 so one does not stop? The afternoon of most riders and the Short Range routes on the other hand need some improve- This unmet Transit Plan does not suggest eliminating County ments. First, the first bus to return to the Taylor need is not 150 Roseville stops from any of the runs. The Rocklin I-80 #2 is generally late and overcrowded and reasonable comments regarding on time arrival and Roseville I frequently stand and or wait an additional to meet. bus condition are operational in nature 15 minutes for the next one. I would suggest and not considered unmet transit needs, a bus that leaves sooner for those with ap- but will be forwarded to operators. pointments and come in earlier and that would reduce the crowded conditions and accommo- date those who get done sooner or have later appointments back in the Roseville area etc. Please stop having every Roseville Transmit The Roseville Commuter Bus routes and Commuter bus go to Taylor/I-80 stop. You need schedule are designed to be cost effec- to have more bus stops in West Roseville (e.g., tive and meet the needs of most riders. Mahany, Saugsted, Foothills, Cirby, Orlando). This unmet The Short Range Transit Plan determined The Taylor/I-80 stop gets too busy in the need is not that no additional commuter stops were 151 Roseville morning and we are waiting out in the cold in reasonable needed in Roseville, but that two addi- a long line though out the parking lot. Taylor to meet. tional runs in the morning and evening I-80 offers the time schedule I need, but is not are needed. The scheduling and pickup close to my home so I am spending more time locations for those additional routes will traveling to Taylor from West Roseville. be determined by the transit operators. The Roseville Commuter Bus routes and schedule are designed to be cost effec- Are there any plans to increase the number tive and meet the needs of most riders. of PM busses that go to Mahany. There is a This unmet The Short Range Transit Plan determined growing number of riders that use that shop need is not that no additional commuter stops were 152 Roseville plus the future residential expansion in west reasonable needed in Roseville, but that two addi- Roseville. Maybe PM3 and PM4 can add that to meet. tional runs in the morning and evening stop. are needed. The scheduling and pickup locations for those additional routes will be determined by the transit operators. There is currently no direct service from, nor do the short range transit plans sug- This unmet gest such a service. However, Roseville I need to go from Granite Bay to Downtown need is not 153 Transit has a bus stop at Douglas and County Sacramento to get to and from work. reasonable Sierra College Boulevards which you could to meet. use to connect to reach bus connections to the Light Rail Station.
47 Unmet Transit Needs Report 36 Service Area Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction I need to go from PFE and Cook Riolo to con- nect with the local D, R, and F routes. This is a hope that it happens within the next 6 years or This unmet While the Short Range Transit Plan does so. I have special needs kids that won’t be able need is not 154 not recommend adding service to this County to drive to do school or business. It would be reasonable unincorporated area of Placer County nice to get them the transportation they need to meet. to live successful lives. Thank you! Lisa The changes to the Roseville M bus schedule were designed to be cost ef- Request Route M to extend service back to This unmet ficient and suit most riders. The M bus Junction Blvd on a regular basis. Maybe have need is not 155 will deviate to Junction Boulevard upon Roseville another M Bus to go the opposite way like Bus reasonable request, but regular service to Junction or A/B. to meet. additional runs of the M route are not sug- gested in the Short Range Transit Plans Service between Lincoln and Rocklin for someone who is physically unable to use the Placer County Transit Lincoln/ Sierra College fixed-route is a new unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet. Placer County, Lincoln, and Rocklin will I am helping young adults with disabilities in work together to ensure that individuals Lincoln who are in wheelchairs and need to get who meet this criterion can be served to Sierra College (less than 10 miles each way). by Dial-A-Ride services between Lincoln When we contacted Dial a Ride to check if we and Rocklin. Data will be collected for could be provided with services, we were told 24 months for this modified service and that there is no agreement between Lincoln analyzed to determine the feasibility and Rocklin and we need to schedule one Dial of this modified service, the number of a Ride in Lincoln and than connect to another This unmet the requests for service by jurisdiction Dial a Ride in Rocklin or Roseville which results need is Lincoln 156 and location, and the best operational the trip to be way too long (1.5 hours each way) reasonable Rocklin methods for implementation. The SRTP and complicated for someone who has intellec- to meet. recommends a broader effort of combining tual disabilities and also need frequent access the Lincoln and Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A- to the restroom facilities. Ride areas for all passengers. However, Will you please let us know what would be the larger project is not considered part of an alternative way for someone who is in the this unmet transit need that is reasonable wheelchair, visually impaired and has intellec- to meet. The feasibility of combining the tual disabilities which makes it impossible to Lincoln and Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride use regular public transportation. areas will require additional study to estimate the impacts to passenger wait times, ride times, trip denials, cost, and funding shares from Placer County, the City of Lincoln, the City of Rocklin and the Town of Loomis.
48 37 FY 2019 - 2020 Miscellaneous Comments
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction I think it is time to rethink the cost and ef- fort for public transit. The bus system in Lin- coln is ALWAYS empty! Let’s save the money and provide free uber/lift rides for folks that really need it. Times have changed and its The comment does not describe a need. time to rethink how we use our transit $$$$. The most recent Short Range Transit I understand this is a major shift in thinking, Plans looked into ridesharing and trans- but instead of having expensive bus system portation network companies (TNC) as that is barely used, we could shift to the alternatives to transit service in Place This is not market to meet the on demand needs. You County and determined that because of 157 an unmet All could have varying negotiated rates. Free ADA requirements, it is not feasible at need. for financially challenged, handicap and this time. Other regions in California are special needs, discounts for seniors and stu- studying and piloting partnerships with dents. We could use the savings to improve rideshare companies and PCTPA will con- our roads (old town Lincoln, 65 expansion tinue to monitor these developments for etc), meet the public safety limitations that lessons learned. our cities are faced with given the decrease in sales revenue, or other worthy projects. Hope you guys give this serious consider- ation. This is not so many buses an so few riders Need to go 158 an unmet The comment does not describe a need All to on demand service need. Stop building thousands of homes until the infrastructure is in place to support it. Utili- This is not ties, roadways, schools and emergency ser- 159 an unmet The comment does not describe a need All vices are not adequate to support so many need. new homes. Highway 65 is a nightmare, highway 80 is a parking lot during rush hour. This is not None needed in rural areas , no crime here 160 an unmet The comment does not describe a need All yet , so let’s not need. I have lived in the area for 30 years. The transit system is unused for the resources it consumes. Ridership quoted by Robert Wygant is pitiful. The system in place is wasteful and inefficient. I observe transit vehicles at all times either empty or at the most 2-3 riders on a 30 passenger vehicle? PLEASE eliminate the public budget waste- fulness of this and offer a dial a ride offer- ing. It would be quicker, you could subsidize This is not the cost and come out ahead without ghost 161 an unmet The comment does not describe a need All buses and drivers. need. Yes this may seem simplistic-however how could you justify the expense if a per rider true cost per ride was actually published? Please prove me wrong and publish this figure.
Yes you do offer specialized transit-why not focus on this component and eliminate what is unused other than as an employment vehicle for the county?
49 Unmet Transit Needs Report 38 Miscellaneous Comments (cont.)
Public Comment Finding Explanation Jurisdiction Please stop spending money on public This is not 162 trans. So few use it but it costs an insane an unmet The comment does not describe a need All amount need. My suggestion is to replace scheduled bus service with an entirely dial a ride system This is not 163 or much smaller buses that use less fuel. an unmet The comment does not describe a need All Might be a lot less expensive for use even if need. we lose some state and federal matches I take the commuter bus(s) into down town Sacramento. The Roseville and Placer bus is such a wonderful ride into town... Comments regarding bus stop locations NOTE: AND...they should allllll stop at the This is not are operational in nature and not con- County 164 Sunsplash at Roseville. The parking lot is an unmet sidered unmet transit needs, but will be Roseville so big and we all park there, I should not need. forwarded to operators. be concerned that the bus I am on was not going to stop at sunsplash, this is such a central parking lot for the area. We take only the Game Day Express. It’s a This is not 165 wonderful service that we hope Roseville an unmet The comment does not describe a need Roseville Transit will continue to provide need. I want to THANK YOU for having Dial A Ride This is not available for my disabled son. He is able to 166 an unmet The comment does not describe a need All be transported to school because of Dial A need. Ride. PLEASE KEEP THE SERVICE. I need to go from Sun Splash to Sun Splash This is not This comment is too vague to determine 167 please. May be a little later at 7:30 pm an unmet Roseville whether or not it describes a need. would help. need. I need to go from my home to EDD-Connec- This is not This comment is too vague to determine 168 tions Job Center for economic transporta- an unmet Roseville whether or not it describes a need. tions. Public Transit Services are excellent. need. I need to go from my home to EDD Job Connections Center because to be on time This is not This comment is too vague to determine 169 always to be necessity. This service are very an unmet Roseville whether or not it describes a need. well. This service to be on time. Driver to be need. very well and attentive.
50 39 FY 2019 - 2020 APPENDIX B: ADOPTED UTN DEFINITIONS PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
TDA DEFINITIONS Pursuant to PUC Section 99401.5(c) Adopted 11/8/92 Amended 3/23/94 Amended 9/22/99 Amended 9/27/06 Amended 5/14/14
Unmet Transit Need
An unmet transit need is an expressed or identified need, which is not currently being met through the existing system of public transportation services. Unmet transit needs are also those needs required to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Reasonable To Meet
Unmet transit needs may be found to be "reasonable to meet" if all of the following criteria prevail:
1) Service, which if implemented or funded, would result in the responsible service meeting the farebox recovery requirement specified in California Code of Regulations Sections 6633.2 and 6633.5, and Public Utilities Code 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.4, and 99268.5.
2) Notwithstanding Criterion 1) above, an exemption to the required farebox recovery requirement is available to the claimant for extension of public transportation services, as defined by California Code of Regulations Section 6633.8, and Public Utilities Code 99268.8.
3) Service, which if implemented or funded, would not cause the responsible operator to incur expenditures in excess of the maximum amount of Local Transportation Funds, State Transit Assistance Funds, Federal Transit Administration Funds, and fare revenues and local support, as defined by Sections 6611.2 and 6611.3 of the California Administrative Code, which may be available to the claimant.
4) Community support exists for the public subsidy of transit services designed to address the unmet transit need, including but not limited to, support from community groups, community leaders, and community meetings reflecting a commitment to public transit.
5) The need should be in conformance with the goals included in the Regional Transportation Plan.
6) The need is consistent with the intent of the goals of the adopted Short Range Transit Plan, as amended, for the applicable jurisdiction. 51 Unmet Transit Needs Report 40 APPENDIX C: TDA FARE REVENUE RATIOS APPENDIX B
TDA FARE REVENUE RATIOS FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT OPERATORS SERVING WESTERN PLACER COUNTY Approved February 23, 2011 Amended December 14, 2011 Amended June 26, 2013 Amended and Effective September 28, 2016
Systemwide Public Fare Transit Findings PUC Section Revenue Operator Ratio Serves the City of Auburn located within the non- Auburn 10% urbanized area of western Placer County; a county 99268.2 Transit which has a population of less than 500,000. Serves the City of Lincoln located within the Sacramento urbanized area of western Placer County; a county which has a population of less than 500,000. 10% until July TDA allows PCTPA to grant a transit operator within 2016 99268.2, Lincoln a new urbanized area five years from July 1 of the year - 99268.12 Transit (2011) following the Census (2010) before the transit 15% post July & 99270.2 operator is subject to urbanized fare revenue ratio 2016 requirements. Therefore, it is recommended that until July 2016, the fare revenue ratio for Lincoln Transit remain at 10 percent. Serves both the Sacramento urbanized area (64%) (58.8%) and the non-urbanized area (36%) (41.2%) 99268.2, Placer County 13.2% of western Placer County; a county which has a 99268.12 & Transit (PCT) 12.94% population of less than 500,000. The service area 99270.1 includes contract services provided for the cities of Colfax, Lincoln and Rocklin and the Town of Loomis. Serves the City of Roseville located within the Roseville 15% Sacramento urbanized area in western Placer County; 99268.12 Transit a county which has a population of less than 500,000. Serves the north Lake Tahoe area located within the Tahoe Area non-urbanized area of unincorporated Placer County, Regional 10% and excludes that portion of the TART service area 99268.2 Transit that is within the jurisdiction of the Tahoe Regional (TART) Planning Agency (TRPA). Serves both the Sacramento urbanized area and the Western non-urbanized areas of western Placer County for the Placer CTSA 10% 99268.5(c)(4) exclusive use of elderly and disabled individuals; a (WPCTSA) county which has a population of less than 500,000. Notes: 1. The systemwide ratio applies to a public transit operator’s entire service area, including areas served under contract service. The systemwide ratio is calculated combining fixed route and dial‐ a‐ride services, as applicable. 2. The Sacramento urbanized area is defined per the 2010 federal census. Definitions for urbanized and non‐urbanized areas are consistent with TDA. 3. Western Placer County excludes the Tahoe Basin within Placer County, as defined by the State Department of Finance. 4. The State Department of Finance estimates the population for western Placer County, excluding the Tahoe Basin, as of January 1, 2012, at 344,730. January 1, 2016, at 363,377. 52 41 FY 2019 - 2020 53
PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF: A RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 19-05 MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS IN PLACER COUNTY THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET
The following resolution was duly passed by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency at a regular meeting held February 27, 2019 by the following vote on roll call:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Signed and approved by me after its passage
______Chair Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
______Executive Director
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code, Title 7.91, Section 67910, PCTPA was created as a local area planning agency to provide regional transportation planning for the area of Placer County, exclusive of the Lake Tahoe Basin; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 29532.1(c) identifies PCTPA as the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Placer County, exclusive of the Lake Tahoe Basin; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code, Section 99401.5(d), PCTPA must adopt by resolution a finding on unmet transit needs prior to allocating Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for non-transit purposes in the next fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, PCTPA has solicited testimony regarding unmet transit needs from social service agencies, transit users, and the general public through advertisements, flyers, press releases, the PCTPA web-page, e-mail distribution, public workshops, and a public hearing; and
54 WHEREAS, each item of testimony received was analyzed and compared with the definitions of “unmet transit need” and “reasonable to meet” as adopted by the PCTPA in May 2014, and is documented in the Annual Unmet Transit Needs Report for Fiscal Year 2019/2020; and
WHEREAS, PCTPA consulted with the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) on January 31, 2019 regarding unmet transit needs in accordance with Public Utilities Code, Section 99238(c).
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency:
1. There are new unmet transit needs in FY 2018/19 that are reasonable to meet for implementation in FY 2019/20: a. Service between Lincoln and Rocklin for someone who is physically unable to use the Placer County Transit Lincoln/Sierra College fixed-route is a new unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet. Placer County, Lincoln, and Rocklin will work together to ensure that individuals who meet this criterion can be served by Dial-A-Ride services between Lincoln and Rocklin. Data will be collected for 24 months for this modified service and analyzed to determine the feasibility of this modified service, the number of the requests for service by jurisdiction and location, and the best operational methods for implementation. The SRTP recommends a broader effort of combining the Lincoln and Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride areas for all passengers. However, the larger project is not considered part of this unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet. The feasibility of combining the Lincoln and Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride areas will require additional study to estimate the impacts to passenger wait times, ride times, trip denials, cost, and funding shares from Placer County, the City of Lincoln, the City of Rocklin and the Town of Loomis.
2. That the Annual Unmet Transit Needs Report for Fiscal Year 2019/2020 is accepted as complete.
55 MEMORANDUM
TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 27, 2019
FROM: Luke McNeel-Caird, Deputy Executive Director Mike Luken, Executive Director
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY DRAFT FY 2019/20 OVERALL WORK PROGRAM (OWP) AND BUDGET
ACTION REQUESTED Authorize the Executive Director to submit the attached preliminary draft FY 2019/20 Overall Work Program (OWP) and Budget to Caltrans.
BACKGROUND Each Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) must submit a draft OWP to Caltrans no later than March 1 of each year.
The OWP should provide a description of the activities to be undertaken by the agency in the coming year, along with detailed budget information. The attached draft OWP and Budget has been developed in compliance with these requirements and has been reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee and Caltrans staff. The draft will undergo continued refinement, as staff receives comments from the Board, Caltrans, and jurisdictions, and as information on grant awards and state budget allocations becomes available. A final FY 2019/20 OWP will be presented for Board approval at your May meeting.
DISCUSSION Work Program The FY 2019/20 work program reflects a continued focus on pre-construction project implementation activities, while considering future construction funding opportunities. The Highway 65 Widening Phase 1 design (WE 42), I-80 Auxiliary Lanes design (WE 43), and State Route 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure environmental clearance and design (WE 44) continue to be core efforts, along with ongoing efforts to update the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (WE 20). Staff will also be working with our partners at Caltrans on Phase 1 of the I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements project (WE 41) to ensure construction continues on time and on budget.
Meanwhile, the Regional Transportation Funding Strategy (WE 60) will continue to explore our options to generate locally-controlled long-range transportation funding for the construction of these and other projects. Expenditures include polling and outreach, as supported by efforts under Intergovernmental Coordination (WE 12), Intergovernmental Advocacy (WE 13), and Communications and Outreach (WE 14).
Building on the success of the recent $14.4 million state Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant for the State Route 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure construction, staff will be identifying multimodal projects of statewide significance as part of the Placer-Sacramento Corridor Mobility
299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 ∙ FAX 823-4036 www.pctpa.org 56 PCTPA Board of Directors PRELIMINARY DRAFT FY 2019/20 OWP and BUDGET February 2019 Page 2
Plan (WE 45) to support funding for the Capital Corridor Third Track Phase 2 project and other potential projects for Cycle 2 of Senate Bill 1 competitive funding grants.
As always, the Work Program maintains our strong focus on core Agency activities, such as Transportation Development Act (TDA) administration, State and Federal transportation programming compliance, Freeway Service Patrol implementation, and management of various Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) including the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) and the Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA).
Staffing Staffing levels remain the same as in FY 2018/19 with 7.0 full time equivalent staff.
Budget Staff is pleased to again provide the Board with a balanced budget of $5,544,743, which is a 4% increase from FY 2018/19 with an increased focus on funding strategy initiatives. The Agency’s $730,000 contingency fund remains intact.
The FY 2019/20 budget includes approximately 56.9% ($3,153,992) of reimbursed work and grants, such as SPRTA administration, CTSA administration, Highway 65 Widening, I-80 Auxiliary Lanes, Highway 49 Sidewalks, building management, and Freeway Service Patrol.
LM:ML:ss Attachment
57 Preliminary Draft
OVERALL WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 2019/20
February 2019
WORK PAGE ELEMENT TITLE NO. 05 Agency Administration: Indirect Labor 1 10 Agency Administration: Overall Work Program 3 11 Transportation Development Act Admin 4 12 Intergovernmental Coordination 6 13 Intergovernmental Advocacy 8 14 Communications and Outreach 10 15 Building Administration 13 20 SACOG/MPO Planning Integration 14 21 Regional Transportation Plan Public Outreach 17 23 Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) 18 Administration 27 Airport Land Use Commission/Aviation Planning 20 33 Bikeway Planning 22 35 Rail Program 23 40 Placer Parkway 25 41 I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements 26 42 Highway 65 Widening 28 43 I-80 Auxiliary Lanes 30 44 SR 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure 32 45 Corridor Mobility Plan 34 50 Project Programming and Reporting 36 60 Regional Transportation Funding Strategy 41 80 Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) 43 100 South Placer Regional Transportation Authority 45 (SPRTA) Administration
OVERALL WORK PROGRAM FOR 2019/20
OVERVIEW
The FY 2019/20 Overall Work Program (OWP) documents the management, budgetary, and monitoring activities performed annually by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA). It is developed annually for Caltrans review and for approval by the PCTPA Board of Directors. This version of the OWP is the result of input from jurisdiction management, public works and planning officials, air district management, tribal governments, elected officials, and the general public. This document also provides an application format for Caltrans-administered funding programs, such as FHWA grants.
Twenty-three work elements are proposed that include specific objectives, budgets, and products. Several of these work elements are funded by a mixture of State, federal and local programs. The remaining are funded solely by TDA funds. This work program has a number of important characteristics:
1. The work program is action oriented. Its primary objective is to implement a programming and funding strategy that will address the mobility needs of Placer County residents, businesses, and visitors. Of key overall importance is the implementation of the Regional Transportation Plan, which serves as a guiding force for transportation improvements over the next 20 years, and its integration with SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and other activities that support regional planning as covered under Work Element 20. Also included here are strategies and studies to address major transportation issues or hot spots including: (1) Placer Parkway; (2) I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements; (3) Highway 65 Widening; (4) Bikeway Planning; (5) Airport Planning ; (6) Rail Program; (7) Regional Transportation Funding Strategy, (8) I-80 Auxiliary Lanes, (9) SR 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure, (10) Corridor Mobility Plan, and (11) Transit Planning.
2. The work program reflects a pro-active approach to identifying future transportation project needs (e.g., TDA Administration, Capitol Corridor Rail, implementation of the Regional Transportation Plan, Regional Transportation Funding Strategy, Corridor Mobility Plan, Bikeway Planning).
3. The work program provides a greater emphasis on implementation of previously identified needs, including administration of the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority, project management and delivery, and leading the preconstruction of the I-80 Auxiliary Lanes, SR 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure, and Highway 65 Widening.
4. The work program includes a comprehensive effort to assist member jurisdictions in maintaining the high level of compliance with “use it or lose it” timely use of funds requirements and significant increases in reporting and monitoring required in the use of SB 1 funding.
i
5. The work program reflects a multimodal approach. Effort has been divided between planning for transit, highways, rail, aviation, pedestrian facilities, and bikeways.
6. The work program reflects the strong commitment to partnerships with other regional agencies in approaching interregional transportation needs.
7. The work program reflects the more pronounced need to participate in regional, state, and federal discussions regarding planning and funding transportation projects.
8. The work program will assure that PCTPA meets all state and federal planning requirements.
9. The work program funding allocation system meets TDA requirements.
The 2019/20 OWP is a product of cooperative efforts by PCTPA’s member jurisdictions, including the Cities of Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Rocklin, and Roseville, the Town of Loomis, and Placer County, as well as other interested agencies. Equally important, the OWP is consistent with state and federal funding priorities.
INTRODUCTION
The mission of the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) is derived from its numerous state and local designations. The agency has been designated in state law as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Placer County. PCTPA is also the county’s Congestion Management Agency (CMA), a statutorily designated member of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA), the designated Local Transportation Authority for transportation sales tax purposes, and the airport land use planning body and hearing board for Lincoln, Auburn, and Blue Canyon Airports. As part of their Joint Powers Agreement, PCTPA is the designated administrator for the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority and the Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency. Under an agreement with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), PCTPA also represents Placer jurisdictions in federal planning and programming issues. Since the PCTPA has a Local Agency-State Agreement for federal aid projects, it is also eligible to administer federal projects.
Regional Transportation Planning Agency: PCTPA was created by Title 7.91 of the government code commencing with Section 67910 as the transportation planning agency for Placer County excluding Lake Tahoe. PCTPA has also been designated as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Placer County excluding Lake Tahoe in Section 29532.1(c) of the Government Code. Previous to this designation, PCTPA operated under the name of the Placer County Transportation Commission (PCTC) and operated as a local county transportation commission as specified under Section 29532(c) of the Government Code.
PCTPA has executed a memorandum of understanding and Master Fund Transfer Agreement with the State Department of Transportation on January 26, 1996, and updated in 2012 and 2014 identifying the responsibilities of PCTPA as the RTPA and providing the administrative structure to implement these responsibilities.
ii
As an RTPA with an urbanized population of over 50,000, PCTPA is responsible for preparing a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) pursuant to Section 65080 of the Government Code.
Local Transportation Fund Administration: As the transportation planning agency, PCTPA allocates the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) to Placer County public transportation agencies pursuant to Section 29532 of the Government Code. The administration of these funds includes the establishment of a Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, the implementation of a citizen participation process appropriate for Placer County, annual recommendations for productivity improvements for transit operators, the performance of an annual fiscal audit of all LTF claimants, the implementation of a triennial performance audit of all LTF claimants, and the preparation of an annual unmet transit needs determination.
PCTPA receives an allocation of LTF funds for the administration of the LTF fund pursuant to Section 99233.1 of the Public Utilities Code and for transportation planning pursuant to Section 99233.2 of the Public Utilities Code and Section 6646 of the Government Code.
It is the responsibility of PCTPA to establish rules and regulations to provide for administration and allocation of the LTF and State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds in accordance with applicable sections of the Government Code, Public Utilities Code and Administrative Code included within the Transportation Development Act. It is also the responsibility of PCTPA to adhere to the applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the former Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (now the California State Transportation Agency) of the State of California as addressed in the Transportation Development Act, Title 3, Division 3, Chapter 2, Article II, Section 29535.
Under SB 45, signed by Governor Wilson in October 1997, Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) such as PCTPA are responsible for selection of projects, known as the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), to be funded with the county’s share of STIP funds. This power also comes with the responsibility of ensuring that the projects are on schedule and within budgetary constraints.
Federal Transportation Planning and Programming: PCTPA has executed memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with Caltrans and the Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) on April 11, 2001, with updates in 2005 and 2016, to govern federal transportation planning and programming in Placer County. This agreement integrates the PCTPA Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and RTIP within the SACOG process.
Pursuant to these agreements, PCTPA receives a “fair share” allocation of both federal urbanized Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP) funds and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds. PCTPA nominates projects for these funds, and SACOG has agreed to select these nominated projects unless they fail to meet a federal requirements. SACOG cannot add projects to the PCTPA nominations.
iii
PCTPA submits the state mandated RTP, developed pursuant to Section 65080.5 of the Government Code, to SACOG for inclusion in the federal Metropolitan Transportation Plan. As part of this agreement, SACOG conducts a federal air quality conformity test on the Placer County transportation program and plan.
PCTPA receives an allocation of federal STBGP funds for Placer County. Pursuant to Section 182.6 of the Streets and Highways Code, PCTPA can exchange the non-urbanized funds for State gas tax funds.
PCTPA allocates these exchange funds to jurisdiction projects based upon an MOU signed by all Placer jurisdictions dated November 2, 1994. The STBGP funding exchange formula and allocation was updated to reflect TEA 21, approved by the PCTPA Board on January 27, 1999, and is updated annually as appropriate to reflect the current Federal transportation bill.
Administration of Federal Aid Projects: PCTPA executed a Local Agency - State Agreement for Federal Aid Projects (Agreement 03-6158) with the State of California on March 2, 1994 and reauthorized on January 28, 2004. The execution of this agreement qualifies PCTPA to administer federally funded projects.
Passenger Rail Administration: Pursuant to Section 14076.2(b) of the Government Code, PCTPA is statutorily designated as a member of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA). Through an interagency agreement with Caltrans, the CCJPA administers the intercity rail service on the San Jose-Auburn railroad corridor.
Airport Land Use Commission: PCTPA was designated the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Placer County by the Board of Supervisors (December 17, 1996) and the Placer County City Selection Committee (October 24, 1996) pursuant to Section 21670.1(a)(b) of the Public Utilities Code. PCTPA acts as the hearing body for land use planning for Placer County airports. PCTPA is also responsible for the development of airport land use plans for Placer County airports as specified in Section 21674.7 of the Public Utilities Code.
Placer County, Auburn, and Lincoln each collect a fee on development projects by local ordinance in the area governed by the airport land use plan. This fee is passed on to PCTPA to help defray the cost of project review.
South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) Administration: PCTPA was designated as the administrator of the SPRTA under the terms of the Authority's Joint Powers Agreement dated January 22, 2002. As such, PCTPA provides staffing and management of the Authority, and is reimbursed for these services under a staffing agreement.
Local Transportation Authority (PCLTA): PCTPA was designated as the transportation sales tax authority for Placer County by the Placer County Board of Supervisors on August 22, 2006. In the event that a transportation sales tax is adopted by Placer’s voters, PCTPA, acting as the PCLTA, would administer the sales tax expenditure plan.
iv
Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (WP CTSA) Administration: PCTPA was designated as the administrator of the WPCTSA under the terms of the Agency’s Joint Powers Agreement dated October 13, 2008. As such, PCTPA provides staffing and management of the Agency, and is reimbursed for these services under a staffing agreement.
v
PCTPA ORGANIZATION
The nine-member PCTPA Board consists of three members appointed by the Placer County Board of Supervisors and one member each from the incorporated cities of Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin and Roseville.
PCTPA has provided for seven full-time staff members to implement the FY 2019/20 OWP. The organization of PCTPA is summarized in Figure 1.
The PCTPA reorganized its staffing structure and became a separate and independent agency on May 1, 1992. Previous to this reorganization, PCTPA was staffed by the Placer County Public Works Department.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
PCTPA’s jurisdiction includes a portion of northern California between the Sacramento Metropolitan area and the Nevada State line, as shown in Figure 2. In total, Placer County contains 1,506 square miles ranging in elevation from 160 feet to nearly 9,500 feet.
PCTPA represents the County, five incorporated cities, and one incorporated town located within the political boundary of Placer County. Transportation planning services are provided to the following incorporated cities with their corresponding January 1, 2018 populations: Auburn (14,611), Colfax (2,150), Lincoln (48,591), Loomis (6,824), Rocklin (66,830) and Roseville (137,213). Unincorporated Placer County, excluding the Tahoe Basin portion of Placer County, has a population of 102,500. These population estimates are based upon information provided by the California Department of Finance (DOF) in their 2018 DOF E-1 Report as updated in May 2018.
AGENCY COORDINATION
PCTPA coordinates regional transportation planning activities with other public agencies including the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the California Transportation Commission (CTC), adjacent RTPAs (Nevada County Transportation Commission, El Dorado County Transportation Commission), the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria, and other interested groups.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
In an ongoing effort to encourage participation of all communities in the transportation planning process, and in compliance with Title VI, the PCTPA solicits input through various policy, technical, and public forums. Outreach to the United Auburn Indian Community is specifically included.
PCTPA conducts public hearings regarding the development and adoption of major planning documents such as the Regional Transportation Plan, the Regional Transportation Improvement
vi
Program, and the annual unmet needs hearing. Additional public hearings and workshops are held for individual work projects as indicated.
The community information and participation effort has been enhanced by expansion of the agency web page and social media on the Internet, to provide citizens with greater access to agency documents and activities, establishment of a speaker’s bureau, and greater emphasis on working with local media outlets. See Work Element 14: Communications and Outreach and individual project work elements for further details.
vii
FY 2019/20 PCTPA Organizational Chart
Mike Luken Executive Director
Solvi Sabol Planning Administrator/ Shirley LeBlanc Board Secretary Fiscal/Administrative Officer* DBE Liaison Officer
Luke McNeel-Caird, PE Deputy Executive Director
David Melko Kathleen Hanley Aaron Hoyt Senior Planner Assistant Planner Senior Planner
Figure 2 Placer County Location
FEDERAL PLANNING FACTORS
Federal Planning Factors are issued by Congress to emphasize specific planning issues from a national perspective, and must be identified in local planning documents. The following summary outlines how and where these planning factors are addressed in the Agency's Overall Work Program:
Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency. • SACOG/MPO Planning Integration (WE 20) • Airport Land Use Commission/Aviation Planning (WE 27) • Placer Parkway (WE 40) • I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements (WE 41) • Highway 65 Widening (WE 42) • I-80 Auxiliary Lanes (WE 43) • Project Programming and Reporting (WE 50) • Regional Transportation Funding Strategy (WE 60) • Corridor Mobility Plan (WE 45) • Freeway Service Patrol (WE 80) The economic vitality of Placer County depends on the ability of businesses, employees, and recreational travelers to get to and from their destinations quickly and easily through a variety of transportation modes. We plan and maintain our transportation systems with a goal of minimizing delays and maximizing choice and efficiency, thereby supporting the economic vitality of the area.
Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users • Transportation Development Act Administration (WE 11) • SACOG/MPO Planning Integration (WE 20) • Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) Administration (WE 23) • Airport Land Use Commission/Aviation Planning (WE 27) • Bikeway Planning (WE 33) • Capitol Corridor Rail Program (WE 35) • SR 49 Sidewalks Gap Closure (WE 44) • Project Programming and Reporting (WE 50) • Corridor Mobility Plan (WE 45) • Freeway Service Patrol (WE 80) Safety is an important consideration in project identification, selection, and implementation.
x
Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users • Transportation Development Act Administration (WE 11) • Intergovernmental Coordination (WE 12) • SACOG/MPO Planning Integration (WE 20) • Airport Land Use Commission/Aviation Planning (WE 27) • Bikeway Planning (WE 33) • SR 49 Sidewalks Gap Closure (WE 44) • Project Programming and Reporting (WE 50) • Corridor Mobility Plan (WE 45) • Freeway Service Patrol (WE 80) Security of our transit and road systems are a key consideration in project identification, selection, and implementation.
Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight • TDA Implementation (WE 11) • SACOG/MPO Planning Integration (WE 20) • Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) Administration (WE 23) • Bikeway Planning (WE 33) • Capitol Corridor Rail Program (WE 35) • Placer Parkway (WE 40) • I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements (WE 41) • Highway 65 Widening (WE 42) • I-80 Auxiliary Lanes (WE 43) • SR 49 Sidewalks Gap Closure (WE 44) • Project Programming and Reporting (WE 50) • Corridor Mobility Plan (WE 45) • Freeway Service Patrol (WE 80) Along with integration and connectivity, accessibility and mobility are the cornerstones of our transportation system maintenance and expansion decisions, and extends to all modes.
Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns • TDA Implementation (WE 11) • Intergovernmental Coordination (WE 12) • Intergovernmental Advocacy (WE 13) • SACOG/MPO Planning Integration (WE 20) • Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) Administration (WE 23) • Bikeway Planning (WE 33) • Capitol Corridor Rail Program (WE 35) • Placer Parkway (WE 40) • I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements (WE 41) • Highway 65 Widening (WE 42)
xi
• I-80 Auxiliary Lanes (WE 43) • SR 49 Sidewalks Gap Closure (WE 44) • Regional Transportation Funding Strategy (WE 60) • Corridor Mobility Plan (WE 45) Environmental assessments, aggressive expansion of alternative transportation modes, and coordination with governmental entities with land use authority are the ways that PCTPA addresses environmental concerns and connections between transportation and land use.
Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight • TDA Implementation (WE 11) • Intergovernmental Coordination (WE 12) • Intergovernmental Advocacy (WE 13) • SACOG/MPO Planning Integration (WE 20) • Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) Administration (WE 23) • Airport Land Use Commission/Aviation Planning (WE 27) • Bikeway Planning (WE 33) • Capitol Corridor Rail Program (WE 35) • I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements (WE 41) • Highway 65 Widening (WE 42) • I-80 Auxiliary Lanes (WE 43) • SR 49 Sidewalks Gap Closure (WE 44) • Corridor Mobility Plan (WE 45) Along with accessibility and mobility, integration and connectivity are the cornerstones of our transportation system maintenance and expansion decisions, and extends to all modes.
Promote efficient system management and operation • TDA Implementation (WE 11) • Intergovernmental Advocacy (WE 13) • SACOG/MPO Planning Implementation (WE 20) • Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) Administration (WE 23) • Project Programming and Reporting (WE 50) • Regional Transportation Funding Strategy (WE 60) • Corridor Mobility Plan (WE 45) • Freeway Service Patrol (WE 80) The ever increasing demand for transportation combined with a severe lack of adequate transportation funding has necessitated PCTPA’s longstanding focus on increasing the efficiency of our existing transportation systems.
Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system • TDA Implementation (WE 11) • SACOG/MPO Planning Implementation (WE 20) • Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) Administration (WE 23) • Airport Land Use Commission/Aviation Planning (WE 27) xii
• Project Programming and Reporting (WE 50) • Regional Transportation Funding Strategy (WE 60) • Freeway Service Patrol (WE 80) With transportation funding at a premium, high emphasis is placed on preserving what we’ve got.
Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate storm water impacts of surface transportation • Intergovernmental Coordination (WE 12) • SACOG/MPO Planning Integration (WE 20) • Placer Parkway (WE 40) • I-80/ SR 65 Interchange Improvements (WE 41) • Highway 65 Widening (WE 42) • I-80 Auxiliary Lanes (WE 43) • Regional Transportation Funding Strategy (WE 60) • Corridor Mobility Plan (WE 45) • Freeway Service patrol (WE 80) A truly multi-modal transportation system is able to endure unexpected events while maintaining the mobility of the region. This can only occur through cross-jurisdictional communication and implementation of best practices.
Enhance travel and tourism • Transportation Development Act Admin (WE 11) • Intergovernmental Coordination (12) • Communication and Outreach (14) • Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) Administration (WE 23) • Bikeway Planning (WE 33) • SR 49 Sidewalks Gap Closure (WE 44) • Regional Transportation Funding Strategy (WE 60) • Corridor Mobility Plan (WE 45) • Freeway Service Patrol (WE 80) Reliable transportation options are central to maintaining and attracting visitors to Placer County’s vibrant agricultural and historical tourism of the foothills and the national/international draw of the Sierra Nevada’s and Lake Tahoe regions.
xiii
CALIFORNIA PLANNING EMPHASIS AREAS
The Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) California Division and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Region IX jointly issue planning emphasis areas (PEAs) annually to be addressed in metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes. Although PCTPA is not a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and therefore not required to address the PEAs, the following work elements highlight PCTPA’s ongoing planning efforts related to the California PEAs.
Core Planning Functions • Overall Work Program (WE 10) • TDA Implementation (WE 11) • Intergovernmental Coordination (WE 12) • Communications and Outreach (WE 14) • SACOG/MPO Planning Integration (WE 20) • Project Programming and Reporting (WE 50)
Performance Management • TDA Implementation (WE 11) • Intergovernmental Coordination (WE 12) • SACOG/MPO Planning Integration (WE 20) • Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) Administration (WE 23) • Bikeway Planning (WE 33) • Rail Program (WE 35) • Placer Parkway (WE 40) • I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements (WE 41) • Highway 65 Widening (WE 42) • I-80 Auxiliary Lanes (WE 43) • SR 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure (WE 44) • Corridor Mobility Plan (WE 45) • Project Programming and Reporting (WE 50) • Freeway Service Patrol (WE 80)
State of Good Repair • TDA Implementation (WE 11) • Intergovernmental Coordination (WE 12) • SACOG/MPO Planning Integration (WE 20) • Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) Administration (WE 23)
xiv
CALTRANS REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES
As the State Department of Transportation, Caltrans has numerous roles and responsibilities for planning, programming, constructing, operating, and maintaining the state’s transportation system.
Caltrans acts as a partner with PCTPA, jurisdictions, tribal governments, and other agencies to implement their various responsibilities. One arm of this effort is the Caltrans’ regional planning activities, which are described below:
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION PRODUCTS
System Planning Completion of system • Corridor Studies planning products used by • Operational Studies Caltrans and its • Preliminary Investigations transportation partners consistent with the System Planning Work plan.
Advance Planning Completion of pre- Project Initiation Documents (PIDs), as programming studies (e.g., indicated in the current Two-Year PID Work Project Initiation Plan. Documents) so as to be ready to program resources for capital projects.
Regional Planning Participate in and assist with Participation in the following projects and various regional planning studies: projects and studies. . Overall Work Programs (OWP) Development, Review, and Monitoring . Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Development, Review, and Monitoring . Participation in Annual Coordination Meetings with Caltrans and Partners . Coordination with Caltrans via Technical and Policy Advisory Committees, and ad hoc meetings to discuss projects, plans, issues, etc. . Participation in Caltrans Headquarters Office of Regional Planning led meetings to discuss new and revised guidelines and updates to the Planning Program.
Local Development Review of local Assistance to lead agencies to ensure the Review Program development proposals identification and mitigation of local potentially impacting the development impacts to the State Highway State Highway System. System that is consistent with the State’s smart mobility goals.
xv
WORK ELEMENT 05 AGENCY ADMINISTRATION: INDIRECT LABOR
PURPOSE: To provide management and administration to all work elements in the Overall Work Program and to conduct day to day operations of the agency.
BACKGROUND: PCTPA is a public agency responsible for the administration, planning and programming of a variety of transportation funds. These activities require ongoing organization, management, administration and budgeting. This work element is intended to cover all of the day to day administrative duties of the agency and governing Board.
To clarify for purposes of allowable charges for Caltrans Rural Planning Assistance (RPA) and to specify indirect cost activities for the purposes of Caltrans Indirect Cost Allocation Plan (ICAP), this work element is split into two parts. Work Element 05 includes the majority of the administrative activities of the Agency, including accounting, agenda preparation, Board meetings, personnel activities, front desk coverage, budgeting, general management, and similar tasks.
Work Element 10 separates out the activities related to the development, update, and reporting of the Overall Work Program and Budget.
PURPOSE: To specify those elements of the overall Agency Administration that are billable as indirect labor under an approved Indirect Cost Allocation Plan (ICAP)
WORK PROGRAM: • Develop agendas and materials for Technical Advisory Committee Monthly • Develop agendas and materials for other PCTPA committees As Needed • Conduct PCTPA Board regular monthly meetings and special meetings as required Monthly • Administer PCTPA FY 2019/20 operating budget Ongoing • Provide general front desk support, including greeting visitors, answering phones, opening and directing mail, and responding to inquiries Ongoing • Participate in staff meetings to coordinate administrative and technical activities Monthly • Prepare quarterly financial reports for auditors and PCTPA Board Quarterly • Prepare timesheets to allocate staff time to appropriate work elements Ongoing • Perform personnel duties, including employee performance reviews, recognitions, and/or disciplinary actions Annually/as needed • Recruit and hire new employees As needed • Administer PCTPA benefit programs Ongoing • Update Administrative Operating Procedures and Personnel Policies to reflect changes in State and Federal law As Needed • Prepare payroll and other agency checks Bi-weekly • Prepare quarterly and annual tax reports Quarterly • Maintain transportation planning files, correspondence and data Ongoing • Maintain ongoing bookkeeping and accounting Ongoing
1
WORK ELEMENT 05 (continued) AGENCY ADMINISTRATION: INDIRECT LABOR
• Maintain and update computer systems and equipment, including all information technology (IT) related tasks Ongoing • Update PCTPA Bylaws to reflect changes in State and Federal law As Needed • Attend governmental and professional conferences and training sessions, such as those offered by the American Planning Association (APA), Urban Land Institute (ULI), American Leadership Forum (ALF), and Institute for Transportation Studies (ITS) As justified
PRODUCTS: • PCTPA meeting agendas and staff reports, paper and online versions Monthly • List of warrants Monthly • Quarterly reports of PCTPA operating budget status Quarterly • Updated Bylaws, Operating Procedures and Personnel Policies As Needed • Employee performance reviews Annually • Actuarial analysis of benefit programs As needed • Employee timesheets Bi-weekly • Reports and updates to Board and/or member agencies on Federal, State, and regional programs and policies Ongoing
REVENUES EXPENDITURES Various – proportionately $358,946 PCTPA $358,946 spread across all other work elements/fund types
2
WORK ELEMENT 10 AGENCY ADMINISTRATION: OVERALL WORK PROGRAM
PURPOSE: To specify those elements of the overall Agency Administration that are billable as direct costs to Rural Planning Assistance (RPA) funds.
WORK PROGRAM: • Prepare amendments to FY 2019/20 Overall Work Program (OWP) and Budget August 2019 - October 2019, January - February 2020, or as needed • Prepare FY 2020/21 Overall Work Program and Budget January 2020 – May 2020 • Review and monitor new and proposed programs and regulations applying to transportation planning, such as the Regional Planning Handbook, that may need to be addressed in the Overall Work Program Quarterly/as needed • Prepare FY 2018/19 Overall Work Program and Budget close out documents July 2019 – August 2019
PRODUCTS: • Quarterly progress reports on FY 2019/20 Overall Work Program Quarterly • Conduct FY 2018/19 closeout with Caltrans staff August 2019 • FY 2019/20 Overall Work Program and Budget amendments October 2019, February 2020, or as needed • Preliminary Draft FY 2020/21 Overall Work Program and Budget February 2020 • Final FY 2020/21 Overall Work Program and Budget May 2020
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF $20,944 PCTPA $45,944
Rural Planning 25,000 Assistance Funds TOTAL $45,944
Percent of budget: 0.83%
3
WORK ELEMENT 11 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ADMINISTRATION
PURPOSE: To effectively administer all aspects of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) in the jurisdiction of the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency.
BACKGROUND: As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, the most basic responsibility of PCTPA is to administer TDA funds and related programs. Currently, PCTPA administers TDA funds of nearly $25 million annually. These funds operate public transit, maintain and construct local roads, and construct bicycle and pedestrian paths. Under the TDA, PCTPA is also responsible for carrying out the annual unmet transit needs process, fiscal audits, performance audits, transit planning, and transit coordination.
WORK PROGRAM: • Solicit public comments on unmet transit needs throughout Placer County October 2020 – December 2020 • Review and summarize all comments received regarding unmet transit needs December 2019 • Evaluate current existing services and their effectiveness in meeting transit needs and demand December 2019 – January 2020 • Prepare a report recommending a finding on unmet transit needs January 2020 - February 2020 • Provide for the management of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Ongoing • Prepare a final estimate of LTF and STA apportionments for FY 2019/20 August 2019 • Prepare a preliminary estimate of LTF and STA apportionments for FY 2020/21 February 2020 • Assist claimants with the preparation of project lists, annual claims, and local program administration Ongoing • Provide for the review, approval, and processing of all LTF and other TDA claims and financial transactions Ongoing • Update policies governing review, approval, and processing of all LTF and other TDA claims to ensure timely compliance with TDA law As needed • Maintain a financial status report of TDA and STA claims Ongoing • Provide for an annual financial and compliance audit of PCTPA and each claimant by an independent auditing firm September 2019 – March 2020 • Update and administer five year plan for Bicycle and Pedestrian Account funds Ongoing • Monitor legislation pertinent to the Transportation Development Act Ongoing • Provide technical assistance to paratransit operators and monitor activities Ongoing • Facilitate and monitor activities of the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) Ongoing • Facilitate and monitor activities of the Transit Operators Working Group Quarterly • Coordinate planning efforts for FTA funds to avoid duplication of services and maximize resources Ongoing
4
WORK ELEMENT 11 (continued) TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ADMINISTRATION
PRODUCTS: • Preliminary Annual Findings of Apportionment for FY 2020/21 February 2020 • Financial and Compliance Audits of PCTPA and all TDA claimants March 2020 • A report summarizing the unmet transit needs testimony, including analysis and recommendations for findings of unmet transit needs February 2020 • TDA and STA claims Ongoing • SSTAC meeting agendas Ongoing • Transit Operators Working Group meeting agendas Ongoing • Final Findings of Apportionment for FY 2019/20 August 2019
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF $168,355 PCTPA $130,855
Legal 500 Notifications and outreach 1,000 Fiscal Audit Consultant 36,000 TOTAL $168,355 $168,355
Percent of budget: 3.04%
5
WORK ELEMENT 12 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
PURPOSE: To share information and coordinate with outside agencies and jurisdictions on matters pertinent to the development of effective transportation plans and projects.
BACKGROUND: PCTPA works very closely and continuously with numerous outside agencies as a way of coordinating our planning efforts. In particular, we work with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for our area, to implement Federal and State transportation programs. While many of our interactions are specified under our Memorandum of Understanding, regional interests and overlapping jurisdictions provide additional need for close coordination. On a larger regional basis, PCTPA works closely with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) on connections both to and within the Truckee/North Tahoe area. On a statewide basis, we work closely to coordinate and share information with the California Transportation Commission (CTC), as well as other regional agencies through groups such as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) Group, Rural Counties Task Force (RCTF), and California Association of Councils of Government (CALCOG). In addition, PCTPA works in close coordination with the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) in regards to transportation/air quality issues.
Given PCTPA’s somewhat unique mix of rural and urban perspective, expertise in transportation planning and funding, and proximity to Sacramento, PCTPA staff is often asked to advise or participate on advisory committees and ad-hoc efforts on a variety of transportation planning issues. As many of these efforts spring up in response to current situations, it’s impossible to anticipate every instance that might occur throughout a given year. These can range from providing input on multi- jurisdiction corridor plans to strategic planning on improving mobility in a particular geographic area to participating on a task force to develop guidelines to implement the Governor and/or State Legislature’s latest transportation initiative.
WORK PROGRAM: • Participate in ad hoc and standing Caltrans policy and technical advisory committees, such as the Regional-Caltrans Coordinating Group Bi-monthly/as scheduled • Participate in ad hoc and standing SACOG policy and technical advisory committees, such as Regional Planning Partnership and Transportation Committee Monthly/as scheduled • Participate at California Transportation Commission meetings and workshops Monthly/as scheduled • Participate in Statewide Regional Transportation Planning Agency Group meetings and subcommittees Monthly/as scheduled • Participate in Statewide Rural Counties Task Force meetings Bi-monthly/as scheduled • Participate in information sharing activities at California Council of Governments (CALCOG) meetings and conferences Bi-monthly/as scheduled • Participate in Tahoe-focused planning efforts As scheduled
6
WORK ELEMENT 12 (continued) INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
• Coordinate with the Placer County Air Pollution Control District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, SACOG, and the California Air Resources Board to develop strategies to reduce air pollution Ongoing • Attend city council and Board of Supervisors meetings As needed • Coordinate and consult with the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria, including attending tribal meetings As needed • Coordinate with and inform jurisdictions on potential changes in State or Federal planning policies As needed • Hold technical workshops for Placer County jurisdictions As needed
PRODUCTS: • Staff reports to Board and jurisdictions on pertinent topics As needed/in accordance with above schedules • Commentary on white papers, draft plans and policies, and similar correspondence and communications to other governmental agencies As needed/in accordance with above schedules
REVENUES EXPENDITURES FY 2019/20 LTF $102,262 PCTPA $122,262
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming, 20,000 and Monitoring (PPM) TOTAL $122,262
Percent of budget: 2.21%
7
WORK ELEMENT 13 INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVOCACY
PURPOSE: To represent Agency needs and priorities with outside agencies and jurisdictions on matters pertinent to transportation planning, programming, and funding.
BACKGROUND: The actions of State and Federal legislative bodies and regulatory agencies have a huge impact on the effectiveness of PCTPA’s efforts to plan, program, fund, and implement transportation improvements. Legislative bodies and regulatory administrators often propose policies to improve one issue while creating major challenges elsewhere. It is therefore critical to represent the Agency’s positions with these entities, make sure they understand the impacts, and do our best to ensure that their actions and activities reflect PCTPA needs. Staff efforts are augmented by our Federal and State advocates, who advise and advocate on our behalf, as well as teaming with other entities with like interests, all with an eye to maximize the effectiveness of our efforts.
In FY 2016/17, the Board directed staff to explore the introduction of legislation to allow Placer to subdivide the county into transportation sales tax districts. The goal of this effort is to have legislation adopted by the State in 2019.
WORK PROGRAM: • Participate in Sacramento Metro Chamber’s annual Cap-to-Cap and State legislative advocacy effort January 2020 – June 2020 • Participate in Statewide California Council of Governments (CALCOG) advocacy efforts Ongoing/as needed • Participate with ad-hoc coalitions and groups to advocate for shared priorities in transportation projects and funding, such as the Fix Our Roads coalition As needed • Develop annual Federal legislative and advocacy platform November 2019 – January 2020 • Develop annual State legislative and advocacy platform November 2019 – February 2020 • Monitor and analyze pertinent legislation Ongoing • Monitor and analyze regulatory agency directives and policies Ongoing • Communicate Agency positions on pertinent legislation and regulatory directives As needed • Meet with State and Federal legislators and their staff to discuss Agency issues As needed • Assist, facilitate, and advocate for jurisdiction transportation issues with State and Federal agencies As needed • Craft and advocate for Board sponsored legislation, such as for a transportation sales tax district July 2019 - ongoing
PRODUCTS: • Attend Self-Help Counties Focus on the Future Conference October 2019 • 2019 Federal Legislative Platform January 2020 • 2019 State Legislative Platform February 2020 • Information packages or proposals for priority programs and projects As needed • Information packages on high priority projects for Federal and State advocacy March 2020 • Analysis and recommendations on Federal and State legislative proposals As needed 8
WORK ELEMENT 13 (continued) INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVOCACY
• Letters supporting or opposing pertinent legislation As needed • Transportation sales tax district legislation text and amendments July 2019/as needed
REVENUES EXPENDITURES FY 2019/20 LTF $108,868 PCTPA $36,368
Interest 4,000 Travel/direct expenses 10,000 State Advocacy Consultant 30,000 Federal Legislative Advocate 36,500 TOTAL $112,868 $112,868
Percent of budget: 2.04%
9
WORK ELEMENT 14 COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH
PURPOSE: To inform the public of the Agency’s activities and issues of interest, and to gather effective public input
BACKGROUND: As the transportation system in California and in Placer County faces more and greater challenges, it is even more critical that the public be aware and informed about transportation issues, the role of PCTPA, and the activities we are doing now and planning for the future. This awareness translates to a higher level of public discussion and informed approaches to dealing with transportation issues.
As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Placer County, PCTPA serves as a clearinghouse of information about transportation issues as they may affect citizens, businesses, and travelers. Many of those issues are in regards to future plans, while others may concern existing conditions. This work element is intended to cover all of the day to day communications activities of the Agency and governing Board.
This work element covers the more general outreach and input that is important to dealing with transportation issues. Specific outreach for specific efforts, including transit and rail, I-80/SR 65 Interchange, SR 65 Widening, I-80 Auxiliary Lanes, SR 49 Sidewalks Gap Closure, and the Regional Transportation Funding Strategy are covered under those work elements. Advocacy and lobbying, including policy advocacy outreach or requests for project funding, are covered under Work Element 13: Intergovernmental Advocacy.
WORK PROGRAM: • Develop and distribute informational pieces to the public, such as brochures, about Agency activities and responsibilities Ongoing • Provide outreach and presentations to interested groups, such as Municipal Advisory Committees, Chambers of Commerce, neighborhood associations, and business groups, on Agency activities and responsibilities Ongoing/as requested • Provide information about transportation options for the general public, including distribution of schedules and informational pieces about transit trip planning, at the Agency offices Ongoing • Solicit and facilitate input of public on transportation issues by specifically including of Agency website address, e-mail address, phone number, fax number, and physical address in all outreach materials. Ongoing • Seek opportunities for partnerships with jurisdictions, tribal governments, community groups, and others to provide greater breadth of outreach Ongoing • Review local newspapers and news outlets’ coverage of issues that affect transportation and disseminate to Boardmembers, jurisdictions, the public, and other appropriate parties Ongoing • Provide prompt responses to public inquiries and concerns, including raising them to Advisory Committee or Board attention as appropriate Ongoing • Design, update, and keep current agency website - www.pctpa.net Ongoing • Post agenda and minutes on agency web site Monthly
10
WORK ELEMENT 14 (continued) COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH
• Provide recordings of Agency Board meetings to local media for broadcast on community television Monthly • Provide outreach and respond to inquiries by the media to provide information and analysis of transportation issues that face Placer County and highlight agency activities and input opportunities, including television, radio, newspapers, and other media Ongoing • Implement and update social media policy to guide staff and consultants in the parameters for social media postings on behalf of the Agency Ongoing/As needed • Develop and implement social media program to highlight transportation programs, projects, issues, and other information pertinent to the traveling public Ongoing • Develop and distribute “e-newsletter” with updates on transportation projects and programs, spotlighting current and upcoming transportation issues Bi-monthly • Hold meetings, workshops, and/or events to capture public attention, disseminate information, and/or solicit input about transportation issues Ongoing • Bring attention to milestones on transportation projects and programs through signage, events, social media, websites, and other appropriate methods Ongoing/As needed • Develop marketing and outreach materials for programs that provide transportation options in Placer County Ongoing • Create, maintain and update agency websites that provide education and information regarding transportation options in Placer County Ongoing • Provide support for alternatively fueled vehicles, including EV charging station Ongoing • Actively participate as a member of the TNT/TMA and support public education and outreach activities applicable to the Truckee-North Tahoe area Ongoing
PRODUCTS: • Information pieces, such as Power Point presentations and brochures, about Agency activities and responsibilities Ongoing • PCTPA “e-newsletter” Bi-monthly • Social media postings Ongoing • Community television DVDs of Board meetings Monthly • Agency web site updates Ongoing • Board agenda postings on website Monthly • Project and event signage As needed • Meeting notifications and advertising As needed • Project and event website construction and maintenance As needed • Fact sheets, program and project summaries, and other printed materials As needed • Coordinated Transit Schedules Ongoing • Nevada Station Electric Vehicle Station operation reports Ongoing • TNT/TMA progress reports and invoices Quarterly
11
WORK ELEMENT 14 (continued) COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH
REVENUES EXPENDITURES FY 2019/20 LTF $167,721 PCTPA $110,821
Communications Consultant 47,500
Meeting notifications/advertising 1,000 TNT/TMA Education/Outreach 6,400 Alternative Fuel Vehicle 2,000 Marketing/Support
TOTAL $167,721 $167,721
Percent of budget: 3.02%
12
WORK ELEMENT 15 BUILDING ADMINISTRATION
PURPOSE: To provide management and administration of the Agency's office property.
BACKGROUND: The Agency purchased the Nevada Station building, located adjacent to the Auburn Multimodal Station, to serve as the Agency’s permanent office space. The office property totals 16,810 square feet, and includes several rental spaces in addition to the Agency's area. Management and operation of the facility is part of that ownership responsibility.
WORK PROGRAM: • Maintain accounting for revenue and expenses for the office property Ongoing • Collect rents as scheduled, implementing collection procedures as necessary Monthly • Work with tenants and contractors to ensure all maintenance and repair issues are identified and resolved quickly and completely Ongoing • Contract with qualified individuals and firms to provide maintenance and repairs on a timely and cost-effective basis As needed • Work with leasing agent to secure tenants and negotiate leases As needed
PRODUCTS: • Accounts receivable, accounts payable, balance sheets, and other accounting records Ongoing • Tenant leases As needed
REVENUES EXPENDITURES Building revenue funds $33,614 PCTPA $33,614
Percent of budget: 0.61%
13
WORK ELEMENT 20 SACOG/MPO PLANNING INTEGRATION
PURPOSE: To update the Placer County Regional Transportation Plan and coordinate with SACOG on the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Program (MTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS).
BACKGROUND: Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) are required to update their RTPs every five years. The current Placer County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 2036 was adopted by the Board in February 2016. The RTP provides the long-range, comprehensive direction for transportation improvements within Placer County. The RTP includes regional transportation goals, objectives, and policies that guide the development of a balanced, multi-modal transportation system. The RTP also includes a financial analysis that forecasts transportation funding available over the twenty year horizon of the plan.
PCTPA actively participated with SACOG and our other regional partners in the update of the six- county Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), which was adopted concurrently with the PCTPA RTP in February 2016. Technical reasons for this joint effort include reference to the PCTPA/SACOG Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated April 11, 2001, which states SACOG provides air quality conformity and other federal requirements for the RTP.
The SACOG MTP also meets all the latest requirements of SB375 and AB32, which includes the consideration of the integration of land use, transportation, and air quality. Moreover, the plan also includes the required Sustainable Communities Strategies to implement these plans. The collaborative approach provided by the coalition of transportation partners throughout the six-county region means improved interregional coordination, as well as ensuring that Placer projects and priorities are integrated into a cohesive regional plan as provided in the MOU.
Staff kicked off the development of the 2040 RTP in FY 2017/18. The 2040 RTP will incorporate the most recent planning requirements identified in the 2017 RTP Guidelines for RTPAs, the latest project information, and revenue assumptions for the region. The 2040 RTP will incorporate the work of and coordination with SACOG’s MTP/SCS update to ensure consistency between the planning efforts due to the complexity and dynamic planning environment in the Sacramento Region. The parallel schedules of the two efforts creates an opportunity to maximize efficiencies and effectiveness in addressing Placer’s needs and goals. The technical coordination with SACOG will consist of the following activities:
• Regional Transportation Modeling and Analysis PCTPA – (SACOG Project #100-002-01P) o SACOG will analyze travel and transportation related data for the Placer County portion of the SACOG six-county travel demand forecasting model. Work in fiscal year 2019/20 will largely support the updates of the SACOG MTP/SCS and PCTPA RTP. This effort includes the integration with the SACOG Congestion Management Process (CMP).
14
WORK ELEMENT 20 (continued) SACOG/MPO PLANNING INTEGRATION
• Regional Land Use Monitoring PCTPA – (SACOG Project #100-005-02P) o SACOG will update the future land use assumptions underlying the update to the Placer County portion of the SACOG six-county travel demand forecasting model. Work in fiscal year 2019/20 will largely support the updates of the SACOG MTP/SCS and PCTPA RTP. • Blueprint and Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) Planning an Implementation – PCTPA (SACOG Project #100-006-04P) o SACOG will support local jurisdictions in pursuing SB 375 CEQA streamlining benefits available through the MTP/SCS, support local implementation of the MTP/SCS principles with technical planning assistance, develop funding and implementation strategies for near-term significant projects identified in the 2016 MTP/SCS, and integrate efforts between the 2020 MTP/SCS development and the Congestion Management Plan.
WORK PROGRAM: • Participate in statewide RTP Guidelines update efforts As needed • Monitor and track amendments to the SACOG 2016 MTP/SCS and/or the PCTPA RTP As needed • Work with SACOG on the update of the Placer County-related portion of the travel demand model (SACOG Project #100-002-01P) Ongoing • Work with SACOG on the update of socio-economic data for the Placer County-related portion of the travel demand model (SACOG Project #100-005-02P) Ongoing • Congestion Management Plan updates. Ongoing • Prepare RTP environmental document July 2019 – December 2019
PRODUCTS: • Amendments to the PCTPA RTP As needed • Coordination with SACOG on travel demand modeling and MTP/SCS implementation Ongoing • SACOG travel demand model transportation network (SACOG Project #100-002-01P) Ongoing • SACOG travel demand model employment file (SACOG Project #100-005-02P) Ongoing • Coordinate with SACOG on Congestion Management Plan updates As needed • PCTPA/SACOG RTP/MTP workshop agenda and materials As needed • RTP progress reports and documents July 2019 – June 2020 • Release Draft RTP Document for public comment August 2019 • Release Draft RTP Environmental Document for public comment August 2019 • Adopt Final RTP Document December 2019 • Adopt Final RTP Environmental Document December 2019
15
WORK ELEMENT 20 (continued) SACOG/MPO PLANNING INTEGRATION
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF $171,566 SACOG $443,875
Rural Planning Assistance 397,000 PCTPA 163,691
Legal 1,000 Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) 60,000 TOTAL $628,566 Environmental/Traffic 20,000 Consultant $628,566
Percent of budget: 11.34%
16
WORK ELEMENT 21 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN PUBLIC OUTREACH
PURPOSE: Provide enhanced education and outreach effort to update the Placer County Regional Transportation Plan.
BACKGROUND: An informative series of public polling campaigns leading up to the 2036 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) adoption identified that residents overwhelming felt that congestion and mobility challenges in the southwest Placer were impediments to the local economy's productivity and their quality of life. The polling also revealed that residents were unaware of planned transportation improvements and program throughout the region.
Reflecting on the polling and development of the 2036 RTP provides critical insight into the steps that PCTPA should take with the development of the 2040 RTP due for adoption in December 2019. This includes more directly engaging residents on the topics of planning processes already at play, the funding realities in Placer County, regulations that impact project delivery, and future mobility improvements being considered.
WORK PROGRAM: • Implement a combination of traditional and on-line virtual workshops July 2019 – December 2019 • Develop fact sheets and marketing materials July 2019 – December 2019 • Develop social media presence and direct email campaign July 2019 – December 2019
PRODUCTS: • Summary of public outreach in Draft RTP Document August 2019 • Summary of public outreach in Final RTP Document December 2019
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF $430 PCTPA $1,430
Rural Planning Assistance 10,000 Public Outreach Consultant 9,000 TOTAL $10,430 $10,430
Percent of budget: 0.19%
17
WORK ELEMENT 23 WESTERN PLACER CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGENCY (CTSA) ADMINISTRATION
PURPOSE: To provide staffing and administrative support for the Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) Joint Powers Authority (JPA).
BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) designation was created by California law as a means of strengthening and coordinating the social service transportation programs of nonprofit organizations and, where appropriate, to serve as the focus for consolidation of functional elements of these programs, including the provision of transportation services. For Placer County, the CTSA designation was held by Pride Industries from 1997 until they resigned effective December 31, 2007.
When no other suitable candidate was found to undertake the role, the seven jurisdictions of Placer County formed a Joint Powers Authority to take on the role of the CTSA. The result was the Western Placer CTSA JPA, which was created on October 13, 2008 by Placer County and the cities of Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Rocklin, and Roseville, and the Town of Loomis to provide CTSA services. Under the terms of the JPA, PCTPA provides administrative services for the JPA.
WORK PROGRAM: • Provide administrative, accounting, and staff support for the CTSA JPA Ongoing • Oversee the implementation of CTSA as delineated in the Joint Powers Agreement, including Health Express, My Rides, Transit Ambassador Program, and the South Placer Transportation Call Center per Memorandum of Understanding Ongoing • Implement bus pass subsidy program Ongoing • Implement WPCTSA and Fixed Route SRTP recommendations as needed Ongoing • Develop agenda items for CTSA Board and advisory committees Monthly/as needed • Provide financial information to Board Ongoing • Provide information and reports to interested groups, and citizens Ongoing
PRODUCTS: • Joint Powers Agreement amendments As needed • Memorandum of Understanding amendments As needed • CTSA FY 2019/20 Budget updates As needed • CTSA FY 2020/21 Budget May 2020 • Contracts for CTSA transit services Annually/as needed • CTSA Board agendas and minutes Quarterly/as needed • CTSA financial reports Quarterly • Reports, audits, and other documentation required of CTSAs July 2019 – June 2020/as needed
18
WORK ELEMENT 23 (continued) CTSA ADMINISTRATION
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF – Article 4.5 $123,209 PCTPA $123,209
TOTAL $123,209 $123,209 Percent of budget: 2.22%
19
WORK ELEMENT 27 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION/AVIATION PLANNING
PURPOSE: To administer the Placer County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Airport Land Use Comprehensive Plan (ALUCP), and related aviation activities.
BACKGROUND: PCTPA’s aviation planning activities include administration of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and providing technical assistance. Placer County has two public-use airports at Auburn and Lincoln, and an emergency airstrip at Blue Canyon.
PCTPA coordinates with the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics for ALUC planning activities and funding. As the designated Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Placer County, PCTPA is responsible for defining planning boundaries and setting standards for compatible land uses surrounding airports. ALUCs have two primary functions under State law. The first is the adoption of land use standards that minimize the public’s exposure to safety hazards and excessive levels of noise. The second is to prevent the encroachment of incompatible land uses around public-use airports. This involves review of land use proposals near airports as delineated in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. This analysis, particularly for more complex reviews, may require the use of consultant services.
While the Truckee- Tahoe Airport is predominantly in Nevada County, part of the runways and overflight zones are in Placer County. Under agreement reached in 2010, the ALUC designation for the Truckee-Tahoe Airport lies with the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC), augmented by a representative appointed by the Placer County Board of Supervisors so that Placer interests are represented appropriately.
A key task for the ALUC is the implementation of the Airport Lane Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). This adds a review of local land use proposals in the areas surrounding the airports to determine whether they are consistent with the current ALUCP adopted in early 2014. The City of Auburn is updating their Airport Master Plan, which is expected to be completed in 2019, which triggers the need to update the ALUCP to make sure the two documents conform.
WORK PROGRAM: • Participate in interagency aviation meetings As Needed • Review development projects for consistency with ALUCP As Needed • Provide staff support for aviation agencies, local jurisdictions and ALUC Ongoing • Administer funds and programs for local jurisdictions Ongoing/as needed • Participate in RTPA Aviation group Quarterly • Work with SACOG to represent Placer interests in the ALUCP for the McClellan Airport In accordance with SACOG schedule/as needed • Review Auburn Airport Master Plan Update for consistency with ALUCP As Needed • Update the ALUCP to reflect the Auburn Airport Master Plan Update In accordance with City of Auburn schedule
20
WORK ELEMENT 27 (continued) AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION/AVIATION PLANNING
PRODUCTS: • Determinations of land use proposal consistency with ALUCP, including public hearings As needed • Updated jurisdiction land use plans/maps, zoning codes, or other planning documents to reflect the updated ALUCP According to jurisdiction schedule • Grant proposals, funding plans, and interagency agreements Ongoing/as needed • ALUC meeting agendas As needed • Request for Proposal and contract to update the ALUCP to reflect the Auburn Airport Master Plan Update In accordance with City of Auburn schedule
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF $96,722 PCTPA $63,722 ALUC Fees 6,500 Legal 1,000 City of Auburn 13,000 Airport Conformity 7,500 Consultant Outreach and 4,000 Notification Expenses ALUCP Consultant 40,000 TOTAL $116,222 $116,222 Percent of budget: 2.10%
21
WORK ELEMENT 33 BIKEWAY PLANNING
PURPOSE: To provide ongoing bicycle planning, safety education and coordination services.
BACKGROUND: In FY 2010/11, PCTPA completed the North Tahoe-Truckee Resort Triangle Bicycle and Trail Plan with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC), and the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association (NLTRA) in support of the NLTRA’s goal to become designated as a Bicycle Friendly Community, which has now been achieved. In FY 2016/17 and 2017/18, staff led an update to the 2002 Regional Bikeway Plan for the unincorporated communities in western Placer County, which was adopted in June 2018. The Regional Bikeway Plan provided a new vision for bikeways within the rural communities, between incorporated cities, and the touring routes enjoyed by enthusiast with an eye toward identifying projects to compete in the statewide Active Transportation Program.
PCTPA will update, print, and distribute the Countywide Bikeway Map as it has annually since 2010. Staff will also continue to monitor bicycle planning and implementation needs, and coordinate with SACOG, Caltrans, and jurisdictions on bicycle issues.
WORK PROGRAM: • Coordinate efforts with PCTPA’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and other stakeholders, including SACOG and Caltrans Ongoing • Coordinate with local jurisdictions on bicycle funding opportunities and grant programs Ongoing • Participate in the Regional Bicycle Steering Committee and regional marketing efforts of May is Bike Month February 2020 – May 2020 • Using enhanced computer software capabilities, update countywide bikeway maps in-house Ongoing • Print and distribute updated countywide bicycle maps June 2020/Ongoing • Coordinate efforts with Caltrans District 3 on their district-wide bicycle facilities mapping effort As needed • Explore opportunities for acquisition of abandoned railroad rights-of-way for bikeways As needed
PRODUCTS: • Bikeway funding applications As needed • Updated Placer Countywide Bikeway Map May 2020/As needed • Regional Bicycle Steering Committee agendas July 2019 – February 2020
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF $24,974 PCTPA $20,274 Graphics/printing 4,700 TOTAL $24,974 $24,974 Percent of budget: 0.45%
22
WORK ELEMENT 35 RAIL PROGRAM
PURPOSE: To support and enhance the success of Capitol Corridor rail service in Placer County, to administer the agency’s passenger rail, freight rail and rail grade crossing programs, and to maximize the rail funding available to local jurisdictions.
BACKGROUND: PCTPA’s rail program includes rail system planning, rail program administration and financing, and technical assistance. PCTPA’s top rail priority is intercity rail and therefore is an active member of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) and its subcommittees. Intercity rail requires extensive work and coordination with Amtrak, Union Pacific, Caltrans and the CCJPA. PCTPA also provides a critical network of support for the service, working with jurisdictions and CCJPA staff to provide stations, platforms, connector buses, and other amenities required for the ongoing success of the service. The State provides operating funds to CCJPA under the provisions of interagency and fund transfer agreements.
The long-standing focus of Placer’s rail program is to enhance rail service to Placer County. One manifestation of that priority has been work to extend passenger service to Reno. A Reno Rail Conceptual Plan was completed in FY 2004/05, but further efforts have been on hold pending ongoing discussions and negotiations with Union Pacific Railroad about the capacity improvements that would be needed to make partially or completely implement these plans. An underlying recognition with these enhancements to passenger rail is that it would also support and enhance goods movement, and may be moved forward through use of State grants for Cap and Trade.
More recently, the rail passenger capacity improvement discussion has focused on improvements to the UP rail “bottleneck” between Sacramento and Roseville. In November 2015, the CCJPA adopted the environmental document for the Third Track capacity improvements, with the focus of providing the Capitol Corridor 10 round trips daily to Roseville. The next steps in this effort, to design and construct the Third Track facilities, entails extensive coordination to build agreements with key parties, including CCJPA, PCTPA, UP, and the City of Roseville.
While the footprint of the High Speed Rail line in California is not planned to extend to Placer County, the CCJPA will be acting as a key feeder line. For that reason, PCTPA staff is also working closely with CCJPA to ensure that Placer interests are best served as the High Speed Rail line moves forward.
Finally, PCTPA staff represents Placer County’s jurisdictions before state, federal and regional rail agencies, as well as the CTC. PCTPA also assists jurisdictions coordination with Caltrans, Union Pacific and the PUC to improve at-grade crossings.
WORK PROGRAM: • Participate in CCJPA and other interagency rail committees and meetings Monthly • Coordinate with state and federal agencies and legislators to ensure and enhance the long term viability of rail service in Placer County Ongoing • Serve as information clearinghouse for jurisdictions, tribal governments, and the public regarding rail services and facilities in Placer County Ongoing 23
WORK ELEMENT 35 (continued) RAIL PROGRAM
• Monitor and expedite improvements to rail facilities and services in Placer County Ongoing • Work with the CCJPA and local transit to provide timely connections to rail service Ongoing • Coordinate rail and transit programs with other agencies and jurisdictions Ongoing • Work with jurisdictions, CCJPA, and Amtrak to increase train frequencies to Placer stations, including negotiations for agreements with Union Pacific Ongoing • Work with CCJPA to ensure Placer interests are represented in High Speed Rail feeder route planning Ongoing • Work with member agencies, elected officials, and others to pursue operational and funding strategies outlined in the Reno Rail Conceptual Plan Ongoing • Participate with Caltrans in their upcoming Statewide Rail Plan Ongoing according to Caltrans’ schedule
PRODUCTS: • CCJPA public hearings, meetings, presentations, Annual Business Plan, public service announcements and press releases Per CCJPA schedule • Memorandum of Agreement with Union Pacific Railroad, CCJPA, and/or other appropriate parties on terms for provision of additional passenger rail service to Placer jurisdictions As needed
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF $29,442 PCTPA $23,942
Legal 500 Capitol Corridor Marketing 7,500 Capitol Corridor 12,500 Match Marketing TOTAL $36,942 $36,942 Percent of budget: 0.67%
24
WORK ELEMENT 40 PLACER PARKWAY
PURPOSE: To support the completion of the federal and state environmental document that will provide construction level clearance for a future Placer Parkway – a new roadway linking State Route (SR) 70/99 in Sutter County and SR 65 in Placer County.
BACKGROUND: The Placer Parkway is cited in the Placer County General Plan, PCTPA’s Regional Transportation Plan, and the SACOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The Placer Parkway would offer an alternative travel corridor for the fast growing areas in western Placer County and southern Sutter County.
The Tier 1 environmental document, which identified a 500’ to 1000’ wide corridor for acquisition, was adopted by the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) in December 2009. The subsequent Tier 2 environmental document effort is being led by Placer County and will analyze design and construction impacts of roadway alignments within the selected corridor.
PCTPA, both as a planning agency and as staff for SPRTA, has led the development of this project since the Placer Parkway Conceptual Plan was started in 1998. As the project moves through the construction level environmental process, the institutional knowledge and background acquired in efforts to date will be needed to assist County staff in moving the project forward. Staff will also be participating as development efforts begin to take shape in the Western Placer area to ensure that the ongoing viability of the Placer Parkway project and that adopted actions and agreements are incorporated into the planning process.
WORK PROGRAM: • Assist Placer County and other partners in developing and obtaining a construction level environmental clearances Ongoing • Participate with Placer County on Project Development Team (PDT) for Placer Parkway Per County schedule • Work with SACOG, Caltrans, and jurisdictions to ensure inclusion of Placer Parkway in their planning efforts Ongoing
REVENUES EXPENDITURES SPRTA Mitigation Fees $25,348 PCTPA $25,348
Percent of budget: 0.46%
25
WORK ELEMENT 41 I-80/SR 65 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS (Multi-year project)
PURPOSE: To develop a shelf-ready phased improvement program for the I-80/SR 65 Interchange, including environmental clearances, design, and right-of-way.
BACKGROUND: The I-80/SR 65 Interchange was constructed in the mid-1980’s as part of the Roseville Bypass project on SR 65 in the Roseville/Rocklin area of South Placer County. The facility is now experiencing operational problems caused by high peak traffic volumes and less efficient geometry of the loop ramp, which cause downstream backups on I-80 and SR 65.
A project initiation document (PID) for the I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements was completed in 2009 by Caltrans District 3. This document provided a planning level alignment alternatives, as well as scope, schedule, and cost estimates. Because the two projects are so closely related, PCTPA has reprogrammed a portion of the savings from a Federal earmark for the I-80 Bottleneck for preconstruction of the I-80/SR 65 Interchange. After an extensive consultant selection process, the contract was signed with the Jacobs team in February 2011. The interchange improvements received both federal and state environmental clearance in September 2016.
Efforts thus far include public outreach, development of project alternatives, and environmental documentation, and design plans with extensive coordination with member jurisdictions. The work for FY 2019/20 is expected to focus on coordination with Caltrans on the construction of the first phase (Phase 1) of the interchange on northbound SR 65 from I-80 to Pleasant Grove Boulevard, including project website updates. Augmenting construction of Phase 1 is ongoing public and stakeholder outreach and member jurisdiction coordination.
WORK PROGRAM: • Work closely with Caltrans, jurisdictions, regulatory agencies, and other pertinent parties to continue construction of Phase 1 of the I-80/SR 65 interchange in accordance with the work program July 2019 – June 2020 • Provide information and make presentations on the I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvement effort to elected officials, business groups, citizen groups, and other interested parties July 2019 – June 2020/as needed • Maintain and update the project website, www.8065interchange.org Ongoing • Work with SACOG, Caltrans, and jurisdictions to ensure inclusion of I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements in their planning efforts Ongoing
PRODUCTS: • Agency coordination during Phase 1 construction Ongoing • Quarterly Phase 1 construction update videos, newsletters, press releases, website updates, advertisements/announcements, and outreach materials Ongoing • Coordination with Caltrans and regulatory agencies to complete permitting and environmental monitoring during Phase 1 construction Ongoing
26
WORK ELEMENT 41 (continued) I-80/SR 65 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS (Multi-year project)
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF $495 PCTPA $57,995
SPRTA Mitigation Fees $113,500 Legal 2,000 Permitting and Monitoring 30,000 Consultant Public Outreach Consultant 24,000 TOTAL $113,995 $113,995
Percent of budget: 2.06%
27
WORK ELEMENT 42 HIGHWAY 65 WIDENING (Multi-year project)
PURPOSE: To develop a shelf-ready improvement program for Highway 65 between I-80 and Lincoln Boulevard, including environmental clearance, design, and right-of-way.
BACKGROUND: Highway 65 between Roseville and Marysville was designated as part of the state’s highway system in the 1960’s. The Highway 65 Roseville Bypass, constructed in the late 1980’s, realigned the highway through downtown Roseville from Washington Boulevard to I-80. The facility is now experiencing operational problems caused by high peak traffic volumes, which cause backups on both northbound and southbound Highway 65 in South Placer County.
A project initiation document (PID) for the Highway 65 Widening was completed by Caltrans District 3 in January 2013. This document provides planning level alternatives, as well as scope, schedule, and cost estimates. The PCTPA board approved funding to complete Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase, which was completed in FY 2017/18.
The next phase of the project is the design of Phase 1 improvements, which is being led by PCTPA. The work for FY 2019/20, is expected to include design of the Phase 1 improvements from Galleria Blvd/Stanford Ranch Rd to Blue Oaks Blvd to gain approval from Caltrans, with extensive public outreach and coordination with member jurisdictions.
WORK PROGRAM: • Work closely with consultant team, jurisdictions, Caltrans, regulatory agencies, and other pertinent parties to design Phase 1 improvements per consultant contract July 2019 – FY 2020/21 • With the consultant team, provide information and make presentations on the Highway 65 Widening effort to elected officials, business groups, citizen groups, and other interested parties July 2019 – June 2020/as needed • Work with SACOG, Caltrans, and jurisdictions to ensure inclusion of the Highway 65 Widening in their planning efforts Ongoing
PRODUCTS: • Highway 65 Widening consultant work products In accordance with work program • Consultant contract amendments As needed • Newsletters, press releases, and outreach materials Ongoing
28
WORK ELEMENT 42 (continued) HIGHWAY 65 WIDENING (Multi-year project)
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF $479 PCTPA $127,979 Legal 2,000 SPRTA 579,500 Design consultant 450,000 TOTAL $579,979 $579,979 Percent of budget: 10.46%
29
WORK ELEMENT 43 I-80 AUXILIARY LANES (Multi-year project)
PURPOSE: To develop a shelf-ready improvement program for the I-80 Auxiliary Lanes, including environmental clearances, design, and right of way.
BACKGROUND: The PCTPA Board in August 2013 re-allocated federal earmark savings from the I-80 Bottleneck project for environmental approval of the following improvements:
• I-80 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane between SR 65 and Rocklin Road • I-80 Westbound 5th Lane between Douglas Blvd and Riverside Ave
Construction of the I-80 Auxiliary Lanes project will relieve existing traffic congestion and support future economic development in southern Placer County. The two locations are being combined as one project to be the most cost effective in completing the environmental documents and project designs.
A project initiation document (PID) was completed by Caltrans for each location in 2000 and 2012. PCTPA began on the Project Approval and Environmental Documents (PA&ED) phase in May 2014, and both state and federal environmental approval for the project was obtained in October 2016.
The work for FY 2019/20 is expected to include continuing design and right of way acquisition for both locations to create a shelf ready project for construction.
WORK PROGRAM: • Work with SACOG, Caltrans, and jurisdictions to ensure inclusion of the I-80 Auxiliary Lanes in their planning efforts Ongoing • Work closely with consultant team, jurisdictions, Caltrans, regulatory agencies, and other pertinent parties to design improvements and acquire right of way per consultant contract July 2019 – FY 2020/21 • With the consultant team, provide information and make presentations on the I-80 Auxiliary Lanes effort to elected officials, business groups, citizen groups, and other interested parties July 2019 – June 2020/as needed
PRODUCTS: • I-80 Auxiliary Lanes consultant work products In accordance with work program • Consultant contract amendments As needed • Newsletters, press releases, and outreach materials Ongoing
30
WORK ELEMENT 43 (continued) I-80 AUXILIARY LANES (Multi-year project)
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF $15,120 PCTPA $138,120 HPP and Repurpose 665,000 Design consultant 540,000 earmarks Legal 2,000 TOTAL $680,120 $680,120 Percent of budget: 12.27%
31
WORK ELEMENT 44 SR 49 SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURES (Multi-year project)
PURPOSE: To develop a shelf-ready improvement program for the Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure project for State Route 49 (SR 49) from I-80 to Dry Creek Road, including environmental clearances, design, and right of way support.
BACKGROUND: The PCTPA Board in March 2017 allocated federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding to work cooperatively with the City of Auburn, County of Placer, and Caltrans to develop a standalone project to close gaps in the sidewalk network along SR 49 from I-80 to Dry Creek Road. Caltrans developed the SR 49 Roadway Rehabilitation project that proposes to repave the entire corridor, add Class II bicycle lanes, and sidewalks along certain segments of the corridor. A Project Report for the Roadway Rehabilitation project was approved March 2017. Unfortunately, sufficient funding was unavailable to provide continuous sidewalks along the corridor and Caltrans Roadway Rehabilitation project was too far along in the process to add the sidewalk gap closure components without significantly slowing their process.
The standalone Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closures project will complete the necessary environmental clearance, design, and right of way to support construction through the recently awarded state $14.2 million Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant.
During FY 2019/20, PCTPA and the consultant team will finalize the Project Approval & Environmental Document and begin the Plans Specifications & Estimates (PS&E), and right-of- way engineering phases.
WORK PROGRAM: • Work closely with consultant team, jurisdictions, Caltrans, regulatory agencies, and other pertinent parties to finalize the Project Approval & Environmental Document per consultant contract July 2019 – August 2019 • Work closely with consultant team, jurisdictions, regulatory agencies, and other pertinent parties to design (PS&E) improvements per consultant contract July 2019 – February 2020 • Work closely with consultant team, jurisdictions, regulatory agencies, and other pertinent parties on the right of way phase per consultant contract July 2019 – June 2020 • With the consultant team, provide information and make presentations on the Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closures effort to elected officials, business groups, citizen groups, and other interested parties July 2019 – June 2020/as needed
32
WORK ELEMENT 44 (continued) SR 49 Sidewalk Gap Closures (Multi-year project)
PRODUCTS: • Final Project Report August 2020 • Final Environmental Document August 2020 • Final Design Plans February 2020 • Acquire Right of Way June 2020 • Consultant contract amendments As needed • Newsletters, press releases, and outreach materials Ongoing
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF $14,857 PCTPA $129,857 CMAQ 717,000 Environmental/design 600,000 consultant Legal $2,000 TOTAL $731,857 $731,857 Percent of budget: 13.20%
33
WORK ELEMENT 45 CORRIDOR MOBILITY PLAN
PURPOSE: Prepare the Placer-Sacramento Corridor Mobility Plan (PSCMP) in accordance with the California Transportation Commission’s (CTC) 2018 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan Guidelines and California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Corridor Planning Guidebook to pursue state and federal grant funding.
BACKGROUND: The PCTPA, in collaboration with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA), and Caltrans District 3, are co-leading an effort to create the PSCMP to complete the plan by December 2019, including project implementation, transportation, and public outreach. The PSCMP will include an approximately 45-mile corridor that starts on US 50 at Interstate 5 and extends along Business 80, Interstate 80 to Highway 49, and Highway 65 to Nelson Lane.
The PSCMP is required to compete for the upcoming CTC Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) Cycle 2 funding anticipated in 2020, which requires the plan to be consistent with the CTC’s 2018 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan Guidelines. The PSCMP will also be used to pursue other federal and state grant funding. In addition, the PSCMP will need to be consistent with the Caltrans’ Corridor Planning Guidebook to pursue available state Interregional Transportation Improvement Plan (ITIP) funding.
WORK PROGRAM: • Work closely with project partners to determine set of priority projects along the corridor that would compete best in state grant programs June 2019 – December 2019 • Work wi with consultant team, jurisdictions, Caltrans, regulatory agencies, and other pertinent parties to finalize the Project Approval & Environmental Document per consultant contract July 2019 – August 2019 • Work closely with consultant team, jurisdictions, regulatory agencies, and other pertinent parties to design (PS&E) improvements per consultant contract July 2019 – February 2020 • Work closely with consultant team, jurisdictions, regulatory agencies, and other pertinent parties on the right of way phase per consultant contract July 2019 – June 2020 • With the consultant team, provide information and make presentations on the PSCMP effort to elected officials, business groups, citizen groups, and other interested parties July 2019 – June 2020/as needed
34
WORK ELEMENT 45 (continued) CORRIDOR MOBILITY PLAN
PRODUCTS: • Draft PSCMP September 2019 • Final PSCMP December 2019 • Solutions for Congested Corridors Program Grant Application March 2020 • Consultant contract amendments As needed
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF $43,725 PCTPA $93,726 SPRTA 150,000 Consultant 275,000 CCJPA Funds 125,000 CMAQ 50,001 TOTAL $368,726 $368,726 Percent of budget: 6.65%
35
WORK ELEMENT 50 PROJECT PROGRAMMING AND REPORTING
PURPOSE: To maximize the funding available to priority transportation projects and programs through accurate and efficient programming of Federal and State transportation dollars, ensure timely delivery, and report the success of those efforts.
BACKGROUND: PCTPA develops and programs transportation projects that are funded with State and Federal funds. PCTPA staff coordinates with Caltrans, SACOG, and other agencies, as indicated, regarding the various funding programs. Staff also coordinates with local jurisdictions to develop needed projects to meet specific program guidelines.
The passage of SB 1 in the Spring of 2017 has brought significant new revenues into play, with critical administrative roles for Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs). The package of ten different funding programs includes a few that are distributed by formula, with most distributed on a competitive basis, and PCTPA is deeply involved in the development of the guidelines and requirements of these programs. As those programs come on line, this means PCTPA must enhance our coordination with member jurisdictions as well as SACOG and other regional agencies to identify projects and develop applications. Equally critical, these programs include a much higher level of reporting to Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) that PCTPA must comply with.
Another major transportation funding program that PCTPA programs, under the requirements of our designation as Placer’s Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), is the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). PCTPA determines how to program the RTIP funds allocated to the county, known as Regional Choice funds. PCTPA also advocates for the allocation of Caltrans' ITIP funds for shared priorities on state highways, including SR 65, SR 49, and I-80. While in recent years, with the advance of Placer’s share of RTIP funds for the SR 65 Lincoln Bypass, as well as the fluctuations that result in a diminishing effectiveness of the gas tax revenues that fund the STIP, this is becoming a much smaller portion of PCTPA’s funding efforts. However, with the passage of SB 1, it appears the RTIP debt may be paid off in one or two more cycles, thus bringing this funding source back into play.
Federal funding is equally volatile. Over the past decade, the shrinking cost effectiveness of the Federal gas tax has required more state and local funding to make ends meet. After many years of short term Federal bills, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was passed in late 2015 to provide a five year package with a modest 3% increase in funding levels. However, the FAST Act relies on six years of revenues to fund the five year bill, which leaves open the question of what will happen when the FAST Act expires.
Whatever the financial climate, timelines, or requirements involved, PCTPA’s primary focus is to obtain and maintain the maximum amount of transportation funding for our local and regional transportation priorities, including transit improvements, Highway 65 widening, the I-80/SR 65 Interchange, SR 49 Sidewalk Gap Closures, Placer Parkway, rail capacity improvements, and
36
WORK ELEMENT 50 (continued) PROJECT PROGRAMMING AND REPORTING
various I-80 improvements. Not only do these projects enhance mobility for residents, they also enhance and expand efficient local, regional, and – in the case of I-80 and rail, national goods movement.
PCTPA also programs projects for Federal programs such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Regional Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (RSTBGP), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 and 5311, as well as coordinating applications for State and regional programs like the Active Transportation Program (ATP).
All regionally significant transportation projects, as well as any which receive federal funding, must be included in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) to allow projects to move forward. PCTPA works closely with SACOG and our jurisdictions to ensure data included in the MTIP is current and accurate. In addition, SACOG provides air quality conformity determinations on the MTIP to comply with Federal clean air requirements.
Under AB 1012, agencies are also held responsible for ensuring State and Federal funding is spent promptly and projects delivered within specified time limits. This requirement is backed up by “use it or lose it” timely use of funds deadlines. Some of the major projects subject to these provisions are the Regional Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (RSTBGP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) programs.
Over and above these requirements, PCTPA has a long standing commitment to ensuring that every transportation dollar is used as quickly, efficiently, and effectively as is possible. PCTPA staff will continuously monitor the progress of projects funded through State and Federal sources and ensure that they meet scope, schedule, and budget.
WORK PROGRAM: • Monitor and update information on regionally significant projects to SACOG for inclusion in the MTIP Ongoing • Prepare and process Proposition 1B Public Transportation Modernization Improvement Service Efficient Account (PTMISEA) and Transit Security and Safety applications and reporting documents Per State schedule • Prepare grant and funding applications, such as for Federal INFRA and BUILD grants Per Federal/State schedules
37
WORK ELEMENT 50 (continued) PROJECT PROGRAMMING AND REPORTING
• Serve as information clearinghouse for various grant programs Ongoing • Provide staff support and advice for local jurisdictions in developing grant applications Ongoing • Work with Placer County Air Pollution Control District and SACOG to integrate AB2766, SECAT, and/or CMAQ funding program for NOx reduction projects to enable the region to meet air quality conformity requirements for programming Ongoing • Analyze CMAQ applications and recommend programming to SACOG per Memorandum of Understanding As needed • Coordinate with jurisdictions to develop and submit effective Active Transportation Program (ATP) applications Ongoing • Participate with CTC and SACOG to analyze and recommend grant funding for ATP projects Per State and SACOG schedules • Update CMAQ, RSTBGP, or other programming to meet timely use of funds rules As needed • Coordinate with SACOG on federal funding program opportunities and requirements As needed • Closely coordinate with Caltrans as they develop the list of Placer projects for which Project Initiation Documents (PIDs) will be done, as part of Caltrans’ Three Year Strategic Plan According to Caltrans schedule • Prepare and process Low Carbon Transit Operations Program applications According to Caltrans Schedule • Prepare amendments to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for Placer projects and programs As needed • Prepare reporting documents and status reports for grant and funding programs According to funding agency requirements • Organize and/or attend technical and management meetings for projects, such as Project Development Team (PDT), and Management Team meetings Quarterly/as needed • Prepare and submit required progress reporting documents for grant programs As required • Provide project sponsors with data regarding State and Federal policies that may impact implementation Ongoing • Actively pursue innovative approaches to advancing project schedules and otherwise speed implementation Ongoing • Actively pursue innovative approaches to project development processes to reduce costs Ongoing • Provide ongoing review of project status to assure all timelines and requirements are met Ongoing
38
WORK ELEMENT 50 (continued) PROJECT PROGRAMMING AND REPORTING
• Work with project sponsors to generate accurate and timely data for distribution to other agencies, community groups, and the general public Ongoing • Work with local, State, and Federal officials to obtain additional funding when needed to construct needed transportation projects Ongoing • Participate in efforts to develop guidelines and requirements for new funding programs under SB 1 Ongoing per Caltrans/CTC schedules • In coordination with member jurisdictions, Caltrans, CCJPA, and/or SACOG, develop applications for SB 1 funding programs Ongoing per Caltrans/CTC schedules • Gather data and complete reporting requirements for SB 1 funding programs Ongoing per Caltrans/CTC schedules
PRODUCTS: • SACOG MTIP Updates Quarterly/as needed • SACOG Air Quality Conformity Determinations on MTIP In accordance with MTIP updates • Amendments and applications to Proposition 1B program As needed • Amendments and applications to Low Carbon Transit Operations Program As needed • FTA Section 5310 Priority List January 2019, per Caltrans schedule • FTA Section 5311 Program of Projects and Application January 2019 • FTA Section 5304/SHA Sustainable Communities Grant application March 2019 • FHWA Strategic Partnership Grant application March 2019 • State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) amendments As needed • Other grant and fund program applications, including ATP As needed • Provision of grant applications and reports to local agencies and the general public Ongoing • Cooperative Agreements with Caltrans for the programming of funds As needed • Project listings on Caltrans’ Three Year Strategic Plan for PIDs Per Caltrans determination • PDT and Management Team agendas In accordance with project schedules • Project and funding status reports, including SB 45 Quarterly • Progress reports on grant funding programs As required • Caltrans Fund Transfer Agreements As needed • Project signage that highlights local agency participation As needed • Cooperative Agreements, Memoranda of Understanding, and other agreements As needed • Transportation facility improvements In accordance with project schedules • SB 1 program applications Per Caltrans/CTC schedules • SB 1 program reports Per Caltrans/CTC schedules
39
WORK ELEMENT 50 (continued) PROJECT PROGRAMMING AND REPORTING
REVENUES EXPENDITURES FY 2019/20 LTF $44,615 PCTPA $129,615 STIP Programming (PPM) 85,000 TOTAL $129,615 $129,615 Percent of budget: 2.34%
40
WORK ELEMENT 60 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY
PURPOSE: To develop a strategy to fund the critical regional transportation projects in Placer County based on current economic conditions.
BACKGROUND: For a number of years, the needs for large scale regional transportation projects far outstrip the county’s available transportation funding. Concern has centered on not only the shortfalls, but the timing to fund major projects identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) such as the Placer Parkway, Highway 65 widening, the I-80/SR 65 interchange, intercity rail, transit services, road rehabilitation and maintenance, bicycle facilities, Tahoe improvements, and SR 49.
While the regional traffic impact fee has now been adopted, increasing travel demand juxtaposed with a massive State budget crisis and dwindling Federal funding have continued the gap between transportation needs and funding availability. The most recent Regional Transportation Funding Strategy, which was completed in 2016, developed the Transportation Investment Plan and Sales Tax Ordinance which was placed on the November 2016 ballot as Measure M. While the effort achieved just under 64% support, that was not quite enough for the 2/3 majority required for passage.
Unfortunately, the disparity between critical transportation needs and funding opportunities, and the integral ties to the economic vitality of Placer County has not changed. Meanwhile, the very legitimate public concerns about traffic congestion and pavement conditions are getting even worse.
Our charge is to regroup and redouble our efforts to provide the public with more information about the planning and funding challenges involved in addressing our critical transportation needs. Enhanced and creative efforts to provide that kind of outreach and information is a key to the success of our Funding Strategy efforts moving forward.
WORK PROGRAM: • Working with consultant, coordinate and facilitate outreach efforts July 2019 - June 2020 • Develop and provide informational materials and fact sheets on transportation needs and funding to interested parties, including community and business groups, and the general public. July 2019 – June 2020 • Obtain feedback from the public on the transportation needs, funding, and options through multiple sources, including web-based media and surveys Ongoing • Monitor and evaluate proposals to change and/or augment state transportation funding programs as they affect Placer County projects and local funding strategies Ongoing • Continue to identify opportunities to leverage state and federal dollars to enhance local transportation funding efforts Ongoing • Continue to update and refine the Regional Transportation Funding Strategy, including opportunities, needs, and constraints July 2019 – June 2020 • Investigate opportunities for innovative funding, such as a public-private partnership for specialized transit services, Placer Parkway, I-80 improvements, and other potential candidate projects Ongoing
41
WORK ELEMENT 60 (continued) REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY
• Develop and evaluate specific proposals to develop local funding options to address local transportation needs July 2019 – June 2020
PRODUCTS: • Informational materials, including fact sheets, maps, charts, website graphics, and PowerPoint presentations, on transportation needs and funding Ongoing • Agendas for meetings/presentations with stakeholders, community groups, and others Ongoing • Regional Transportation Funding Strategy update November 2019/Ongoing • Public survey data results November 2019 and March 2020/as needed
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF $593,725 PCTPA $164,275 UAIC Funding 150,000 Legal 1,000 Funding Strategy consultant 325,700 Funding Strategy brochure 150,000 Public survey consultant 77,750 Event sponsorship 25,000 TOTAL $743,725 $743,725 Percent of budget: 13.41%
42
WORK ELEMENT 80 FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL (FSP)
PURPOSE: To facilitate implementation of a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) on I-80 and SR 65 in South Placer County.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the program is to keep traffic moving by removing traffic impediments, such as cars with mechanical problems or that have been involved in accidents, as well as assisting the motoring public. The program provides a tow truck with a qualified technician patrolling the target area. The service began in 2003 through a Placer County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)'s AB 2766 funds to implement a Freeway Service Patrol in the congested areas of I-80 in the South Placer County area. In 2005 PCTPA became eligible to receive funding under the State’s FSP program. Since then, the program has been expanded with increased service hours to cover I-80 from Roseville to Auburn and SR 65 from I-80 to Twelve Bridges Dr.
Juxtaposed with this need is funding availability. FSP is subject to annual State budget allocations and formulas, as well as annual grants, and the available funding varies. Staff works closely with the CHP and the contractor to tweak the program, including service hours, days, and costs, to balance with available funding.
WORK PROGRAM: • Coordinating with California Highway Patrol, administer and monitor FSP program Ongoing • Publicize FSP program and benefits Ongoing • Participate in regional and statewide FSP oversight committees Ongoing • Participate in annual “ride-alongs” with California Highway Patrol and contractor Annually • Participate in FSP Technical Advisory Committee meetings Ongoing • Contract and coordinate with the Sacramento Transportation Authority in monitoring FSP operator activities and performance Ongoing
PRODUCTS: • Progress reports Quarterly • Freeway Service Patrol brochures Ongoing • Freeway Service Patrol signage and material updates As needed
43
WORK ELEMENT 80 (continued) FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL
REVENUES EXPENDITURES 2019/20 LTF $8,346 PCTPA $75,096 FSP State Allocation 255,000 FSP contractor 401,000 FSP SB 1 Allocation 120,000 Legal 1,000 FY 2018/19 CMAQ Grant 93,750 $477,096 TOTAL $477,096 Percent of budget: 8.60%
44
WORK ELEMENT 100 SOUTH PLACER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SPRTA) ADMINISTRATION
PURPOSE: To provide staffing and administrative support for the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority.
BACKGROUND: PCTPA adopted a Regional Transportation Funding Strategy in August 2000 which included the development of a regional transportation impact fee program. PCTPA staff worked with the jurisdictions of South Placer County, as well as the development community, environmentalists, and community groups to develop a program and mechanism to implement this impact fee. The SPRTA, formed in January 2002, is the result of those efforts.
Under the Joint Powers Agreement that formed SPRTA, PCTPA is designated as the entity to provide administrative, accounting, and staffing support for the Authority. PCTPA is to be reimbursed for those staffing costs, as well as repaid for previous expenditures used to form the JPA and develop the fee program.
WORK PROGRAM: • Provide administrative, accounting, and staff support for the SPRTA Ongoing • Oversee the implementation of the SPRTA’s traffic impact fee as delineated in the Implementation Program, providing updates as indicated Ongoing • Develop agendas for Authority Board and advisory committees Monthly/as needed • Provide financial information to Board Ongoing • Provide information and reports to interested developers, groups, and citizens Ongoing • Develop data and facilitate discussions on the potential expansion of JPA membership to the Town of Loomis Ongoing • Work with member jurisdictions to update the JPA agreement As needed
PRODUCTS: • SPRTA Implementation Plan updates As needed • SPRTA Improvement Program updates As needed • Joint Powers Agreement amendments As needed • SPRTA FY 2019/20 Budget updates As needed • SPRTA FY 2020/21 Budget May 2020 • SPRTA Cash flow projections As needed • Contracts for needed services, such as traffic modeling and attorney services Annually/as needed • SPRTA Board agendas and minutes Monthly/as needed • SPRTA Technical Advisory Committee agendas and minutes Monthly/as needed • SPRTA financial reports Quarterly • Updated Joint Powers Agreement As needed
45
WORK ELEMENT 100 (continued) SOUTH PLACER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SPRTA) ADMINISTRATION
REVENUES EXPENDITURES SPRTA $103,070 PCTPA $103,070 Percent of budget: 1.86%
46
COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan APCD Air Pollution Control District ATP Active Transportation Program Caltrans California Department of Transportation CALCOG California Association of Councils of Governments CCJPA Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CMAQ Congestion Mitigation Air Quality CTC California Transportation Commission CTSA Consolidated Transportation Services Agency FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FSP Freeway Service Patrol FTA Federal Transit Administration FY Fiscal Year ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems JPA Joint Powers Authority LTF Local Transportation Fund MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan MTIP Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program OWP Overall Work Program PA&ED Project Approval and Environmental Documentation PCLTA Placer County Local Transportation Authority PPM Planning, Programming and Monitoring Prop 1B Proposition 1B (November 2006 Transportation Bond Funding) PTMISEA Public Transportation Modernization Improvement and Service Enhancement Account Program RFP Request for Proposal RPA Rural Planning Assistance Funds RSTP Regional Surface Transportation Program RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program RTP Regional Transportation Plan RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SHOPP State Highway Operation and Protection Program SPRTA South Placer Regional Transportation Authority SSTAC Social Services Transportation Advisory Council STA State Transit Assistance STIP State Transportation Improvement Program STP Surface Transportation Program TDA Transportation Development Act TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery TNT/TMA Truckee North Tahoe Transportation Management Association TRPA Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 47
Printed 2/5/2019 8:38 AM
Table 1 Budget Summary FY 2019/20 Expenditures FY 2018/19 Proposed Adopted Difference Salary $754,888 $695,124 $59,764 Benefits $414,834 $381,713 $33,121 Direct (Table 2) $3,623,425 $3,462,122 $161,303 Indirect (Table 3) $751,553 $653,513 $98,040 Total $5,544,701 $5,192,472 $352,229
Revenues FY 2018/19 Proposed Adopted Difference LTF Administration $475,000 $475,000 $0 LTF Planning $887,751 $870,344 $17,407 Rural Planning Assistance - Formula $422,000 $422,000 $0 Rural Planning Assistance - RTP Outreach Grant $10,000 $30,000 ($20,000) ALUCP Contribution - City of Auburn $13,000 $7,000 $6,000 ALUC Fees $6,500 $6,500 $0 STIP Planning Funds $165,000 $165,000 $0 CMAQ Grant - CMP $50,001 $50,000 $1 Caltrans FSP Grant $255,000 $254,981 $19 SB 1 FSP Grant $120,000 $80,019 $39,981 CHP FSP Grant Pass-Through $0 $27,000 ($27,000) CMAQ Grant - FSP $93,750 $83,750 $10,000 Building Administration $33,614 $22,102 $11,512 Capitol Corridor Marketing Match $7,500 $7,500 $0 Interest $4,000 $4,000 $0 SPRTA Administration $103,070 $57,860 $45,210 SPRTA - I-80/SR 65 IC $113,500 $300,000 ($186,500) SPRTA - Placer Parkway $25,348 $10,551 $14,797 SPRTA - SR 65 Widening $579,500 $665,000 ($85,500) SPRTA - PSCMP $150,000 $0 $150,000 CCJPA - PSCMP $125,000 $0 $125,000 UAIC - Funding Strategy Brochure $150,000 $0 $150,000 HPP Section 1702 - I-80 Auxiliary Lanes $665,000 $685,000 ($20,000) CMAQ Grant - SR 49 Sidewalks $717,000 $230,000 $487,000 HIP Grant - SR 49 Sidewalks $0 $300,000 ($300,000) FTA 5304 Grant - Dry Creek Planning Study $0 $81,000 ($81,000) City of Roseville FTA 5304 Matching Funds $0 $10,500 ($10,500) Western Placer CTSA JPA Administration $123,209 $137,951 ($14,742) LTF Carryover $250,000 $334,346 ($84,346) Total $5,544,743 $5,317,404 $227,339
Contingency Fund Balance FY 2018/19 Proposed Adopted Difference PCTPA $680,000 $680,000 $0 Nevada Station $50,000 $50,000 $0 Total $730,000 $730,000 $0
Revenue to Expenditure Comparison FY 2018/19 Proposed Adopted Difference Surplus/(Deficit) $42 ($67)
PCTPA Budget FY 2019/20 Draft February 2018 Printed 2/5/2019 8:38 AM
Table 2 Direct Costs FY 2019/20 FY 2018/19 Proposed Adopted Difference Source TDA Fiscal Audits (WE 11) $36,000 $47,300 ($11,300) LTF Triennial Performancee Audits (WE 11) $0 $40,000 ($40,000) LTF Coordinated Transit Schedule Guide Update (WE 14) $0 $4,000 ($4,000) CMAQ, LTF Alternative Fuel Vehicle Marketing/Support (WE 14) $2,000 $2,000 $0 CMAQ, LTF TNT/TMA Membership (WE 14) $6,400 $6,400 $0 LTF Short Range Transit Plans (WE 23) $0 $25,000 ($25,000) WPCTSA CMAQ, LTF, Capitol Corridor Marketing (WE 35) $12,500 $12,500 $0 CCJPA SACOG Payment (WE 20) $443,875 $435,172 $8,703 LTF, RPA Website/Graphic Design (WE 14, 60) $0 $17,000 ($17,000) LTF I-80/SR 65 Interchange Outreach Consultant (WE 41) $24,000 $18,900 $5,100 SPRTA I-80/SR 65 Interchange Permitting Consultant (WE 41) $30,000 $240,000 ($210,000) SPRTA SR 65 Widening Consultant Team - Design (WE 42) $450,000 $500,000 ($50,000) SPRTA I-80 Auxiliary Lanes Consultant - Design/ROW (WE 43) $540,000 $600,000 ($60,000) HPP, RPS9 SR 49 Sidewalk Consultant - Enviro/Design (WE 44) $600,000 $450,000 $150,000 CMAQ SPRTA, CCJPA, PSCMP Consultant (WE 45) $275,000 $0 $275,000 CMAQ ALUC Consulting Services (WE 27) $7,500 $7,500 $0 ALUC fees, LTF Outreach and Notification Expenses (WE 11, 14, 27) $6,000 $7,000 ($1,000) RPA, LTF Communications Consultant (WE 14) $47,500 $47,500 $0 LTF Federal Advocacy Services (WE 13) $36,500 $36,500 $0 LTF State Advocacy Services (WE 13) $30,000 $30,000 $0 LTF Advocacy Expenses/Travel (WE 13) $10,000 $10,000 $0 LTF Freeway Service Patrol Contractor (WE 80) $401,000 $390,000 $11,000 Caltrans, SB1, LTF Educational Outreach/Events (WE 14, 60) $25,000 $17,000 $8,000 LTF LTF, RPA, CMAQ, Legal Services (WE 11, 20, 27, 35, 41, 42, 60, 80) $13,000 $97,850 ($84,850) HPP, ALUC fees Bicycle Map Printing (WE 33) $4,700 $12,500 ($7,800) LTF SB 1 Grant Application Consultant (WE 50) $0 $10,000 ($10,000) LTF RTP Outreach Consultant (WE 21) $9,000 $25,000 ($16,000) RPA RTP Traffic/Enviornmental Consultants (WE 20) $20,000 $80,000 ($60,000) LTF Funding Strategy Consultant (WE 60) $325,700 $110,000 $215,700 LTF Funding Strategy Brochure (WE 60) $150,000 $0 $150,000 UAIC Public Opinion Polling (WE 60) $77,750 $60,000 $17,750 LTF Dry Creek Trail Consultant/City of Roseville (WE 77) $0 $90,000 ($90,000) FTA 5304 ALUCP Update Consultant (WE 27) $40,000 $33,000 $7,000 LTF TOTAL $3,623,425 $3,462,122 $161,303 LTF = Local Transportation Fund RPA = Rural Planning Assistance Funds FTA = Federal Transit Administration CMAQ = Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality STIP = State Transportation Improvement Program
PCTPA Budget FY 2019/20 Draft February 2019 Printed 2/5/2019 8:38 AM
Table 3 Indirect Cost Budget FY 2019/20 FY 2018/19 CALTRANS ICAP INDIRECT Proposed Adopted Variance Variance % ADVERTISING $1,000 $2,000 ($1,000) -50.00% COMMUNICATION $8,000 $10,250 ($2,250) -21.95% OFFICE/COMPUTER EQUIPMENT $7,500 $7,500 $0 0.00% DUES/SUBSCRIPTIONS $1,000 $1,000 $0 0.00% OFFICE/COMPUTER EQUIP MAINT $15,000 $21,800 ($6,800) -31.19% FURNITURE $1,000 $500 $500 100.00% INSURANCE $20,000 $20,000 $0 0.00% LEGAL Note 2 $14,000 $16,000 ($2,000) -12.50% MEMBERSHIP/TRAINING $10,000 $14,700 ($4,700) -31.97% OFFICE SUPPLIES $4,300 $4,300 $0 0.00% POSTAGE $3,750 $3,750 $0 0.00% PRINTING & REPRODUCTION $4,000 $4,000 $0 0.00% TRAVEL/AUTO/LODGING $19,000 $19,000 $0 0.00% UTILITIES/MAINTENANCE $18,750 $18,750 $0 0.00% INDIRECT LABOR - Note 3 $358,946 $353,863 $5,083 1.44% Subtotal $486,246 $497,413 ($11,167) -2.24% INDIRECT COST ADJUSTMENT FROM FY 17/18 $56,547 ($47,022) $103,569 0.00% ICAP ALLOWABLE TOTAL $542,793 $450,391 $92,402 TOTAL INDIRECT BOARDMEMBER REIMBURSEMENT $8,500 $8,500 $0 0.00% MEETING SUPPLIES $6,000 $6,000 $0 0.00% MEMBERSHIP/CHAMBERS $10,500 $10,500 $0 100.00% ACTUARIAL $5,000 $5,000 $0 0.00% FISCAL AUDIT Note 1 $18,000 $16,100 $1,900 11.80% OFFICE SPACE $160,760 $157,022 $3,738 2.38% SUBTOTAL $208,760 $203,122 $5,638 2.78% INDIRECT COST BUDGET TOTAL $751,553 $653,513 $98,040 15.00% Non-Cash Expenses (For Information Only) DEPRECIATION EXPENSE $0 $0 $0 Note 1 - Split between Table 2 - Direct Costs and Table 3 - Indirect Costs Note 2 - Legal is now split between direct and indirect budgets Note 3 - Indirect Labor recalculated based on Caltrans Indirect Cost Plan directives
PCTPA Budget FY 2019/20 Draft February 2019 Printed 2/5/2019 8:38 AM
Table 4 Revenue - 2019/20 OWP
Current Year Rural Plan FSP LTF/STA LTF 20\19/20 Assist STIP Federal SPRTA CMAQ Grants Article Other TOTAL Work Element Earmark 4.5 5 Agency Admin - Indirect $0 $ 358,946 (1) $358,946 10 Agency Admin - OWP $20,944 $25,000 $45,944 11 TDA Implementation $168,355 $168,355 12 Intergovernmental Coordination $102,262 $20,000 $122,262 13 Intergovernmental Advocacy $108,868 $4,000 (2) $112,868 14 Communications/Outreach $167,721 $167,721 15 Building Administration $0 $33,614 (4) $33,614 20 SACOG/MPO Planning Integration $171,566 $397,000 $60,000 $628,566 21 RTP Public Outreach $430 $10,000 $10,430 23 CTSA Administration $0 $123,209 $123,209 27 Airport Land Use Commission $96,722 $19,500 (6) (8) $116,222 33 Bikeway Planning $24,974 $24,974 35 Capitol Corridor/Rail $29,442 $7,500 (3) $36,942 40 Placer Parkway ($0) $25,348 $25,348 41 I-80/SR 65 Interchange $495 $113,500 $113,995 42 SR 65 Widening $479 $579,500 $579,979 43 I-80 Auxiliary Lanes $15,120 $665,000 $680,120 44 SR 49 Sidewalks $14,857 $717,000 $731,857 45 Corridor Mobility Plan $43,725 $150,000 $50,001 $125,000 (5) $368,726 50 Project Programming and Reporting $44,615 $85,000 $129,615 60 Transportation Funding Strategy $593,725 $150,000 (9) $743,725 80 Freeway Service Patrol $8,346 $93,750 $375,000 $477,096 100 SPRTA Administration ($0) $103,070 $103,070 Unallocated Revenue/Reserve $106 $106 Total $1,612,751 $432,000 $165,000 $665,000 $971,418 $860,751 $375,000 $123,209 $339,614 $5,544,743 Notes: (1) Work Element 05 is indirect and spread over all other work elements; (2) Estimated interest; (3) Capitol Corridor Marketing Match; (4) Building Admin Reimburse; (5) CCJPA Funding Contribution; (6) ALUC fees; (7) FTA Section 5304 including Local Match; (8) City of Auburn (9) UAIC Funding Contribution
PCTPA Budget FY 2019/20 Draft February 2019 Printed 2/5/2019 8:40 AM
Table 5 Caltrans Total Rate Expenditures - 2019/20 OWP ICAP rate (see Table 3) Website/ % of PY Staff Indirect Indirect SACOG Consulting Graphics Legal Other Total Budget 5 Agency Admin - Indirect 1.63 $358,946 (1) $358,946 see Table 3 10 Overall Work Program 0.11 $27,971 $12,980 $4,993 $45,944 0.83% 11 TDA Implementation 0.48 $79,666 $36,968 $14,221 $36,000 $500 $1,000 (5) $168,355 3.04% 12 Intergovernmental Coordination 0.28 $74,435 $34,540 $13,287 $122,262 2.21% 13 Intergovernmental Advocacy 0.08 $22,141 $10,274 $3,952 $66,500 $10,000 (7) $112,868 2.04% 14 Communications/Outreach 0.32 $67,469 $31,308 $12,044 $47,500 $0 $9,400 (2),(5),(6) $167,721 3.02% 15 Building Administration 0.09 $20,465 $9,496 $3,653 $33,614 0.61% 20 SACOG/MPO Planning Integration 0.47 $99,657 $46,244 $17,789 $443,875 $20,000 $1,000 $628,566 11.34% 21 RTP Public Outreach 0.00 $871 $404 $155 $9,000 $10,430 0.19% 23 CTSA Administration 0.40 $75,011 $34,808 $13,390 $0 $123,209 2.22% 27 ALUC/Aviation Planning 0.17 $38,795 $18,002 $6,925 $47,500 $1,000 $4,000 (5) $116,222 2.10% 33 Bikeway Planning 0.08 $12,343 $5,728 $2,203 $4,700 $24,974 0.45% 35 Capitol Corridor Rail 0.06 $14,576 $6,764 $2,602 $12,500 $500 $36,942 0.67% 40 Placer Parkway 0.06 $15,432 $7,161 $2,755 $25,348 0.46% 41 I-80/SR 65 Interchange 0.13 $35,308 $16,384 $6,303 $54,000 $2,000 $113,995 2.06% 42 SR 65 Widening 0.31 $77,915 $36,155 $13,908 $450,000 $2,000 $579,979 10.46% 43 I-80 Auxiliary Lanes 0.38 $84,089 $39,020 $15,010 $540,000 $2,000 $680,120 12.27% 44 SR 49 Sidewalks 0.42 $79,058 $36,686 $14,112 $600,000 $2,000 $731,857 13.20% 45 Corridor Mobility Plan 0.25 $57,062 $26,479 $10,186 $275,000 $368,726 6.65% 50 Project Programming and Reporting 0.42 $78,911 $36,618 $14,086 $0 $129,615 2.34% 60 Transportation Funding Strategy 0.44 $100,013 $46,409 $17,853 $553,450 $1,000 $25,000 (4) $743,725 13.41% 80 Freeway Service Patrol 0.20 $45,719 $21,215 $8,161 $1,000 $401,000 (3) $477,096 8.60% 100 SPRTA Administration 0.25 $62,750 $29,118 $11,201 $103,070 1.86% Total 7.00 $1,169,659 $542,764 $208,789 $443,875 $2,711,450 $4,700 $13,000 $450,400 $5,544,637 100.00% * Items billed through Caltrans exclude "unallowable" indirect costs, which is primarily agency rent. See Table 3. Notes: (1) WE 05 is indirect and proportionally spread over all other work elements; (2) Includes $6,400 payment to TNT/TMA for outreach in Tahoe area; (3) FSP contract; (4) transportation event sponsorship; (5) notifications and outreach; (6) alternative fuel vehicle support; (7) travel and conference expenses
PCTPA Budget FY 2019/20 Draft February 2019 Printed 2/5/2019 8:38 AM
Table 6
Summary of Staff Hours and Costs FY 2019/20 Staff Staff Person Staff Staff Hours Hour % Years Costs Cost % 5 Agency Administration: Indirect 3380 23.21% 1.63 $358,946 23.48% 10 Agency Admin - OWP 230 1.58% 0.11 $27,971 1.83% 11 TDA Implementation 990 6.80% 0.48 $79,666 5.21% 12 Intergovernmental Coordination 580 3.98% 0.28 $74,435 4.87% 13 Intergovernmental Advocacy 165 1.13% 0.08 $22,141 1.45% 14 Comm/Outreach 670 4.60% 0.32 $67,469 4.41% 15 Building Administration 190 1.30% 0.09 $20,465 1.34% SACOG/MPO Plan Integration and 20 Support 970 6.66% 0.47 $99,657 6.52% 21 RTP Public Outreach 10 0.07% 0.00 $871 0.06% 23 CTSA Administration 830 5.70% 0.40 $75,011 4.91% 27 ALUC/Aviation Planning 355 2.44% 0.17 $38,795 2.54% 33 Bikeway Planning 160 1.10% 0.08 $12,343 0.81% 35 Capitol Corridor Rail 125 0.86% 0.06 $14,576 0.95% 40 Placer Parkway EIR 115 0.79% 0.06 $15,432 1.01% 41 I-80/SR 65 Interchange 270 1.85% 0.13 $35,308 2.31% 42 SR 65 Widening 640 4.40% 0.31 $77,915 5.10% 43 I-80 Auxiliary Lanes 780 5.36% 0.38 $84,089 5.50% 44 SR 49 Sidewalks 870 5.98% 0.42 $79,058 5.17% 45 Corridor Mobility Plan 510 3.50% 0.25 $57,062 3.73% 50 Project Programming and Reporting 870 5.98% 0.42 $78,911 5.16% 60 Regional Transp Funding Strategy 910 6.25% 0.44 $100,013 6.54% 80 Freeway Service Patrol 420 2.88% 0.20 $45,719 2.99% 100 SPRTA Administration 520 3.57% 0.25 $62,750 4.11% Total 14560 100.0% 7.00 $1,528,605 100.0%
PCTPA Budget FY 2019/20 Draft February 2019 Printed 2/5/2019 8:38 AM
Table 7 Agency Salary and Pay Range FY 2019/20
FY 2019/20 Monthly Salary Range # of Position Title Classification Positions Low High Executive Director Executive Director 1 14558 19509 Deputy Executive Director Deputy Director 1 11600 15269 Senior Transportation Planner Senior Planner 2 8641 11028 Associate Planner Associate Planner 0 6812 8694 Assistant Planner Assistant Planner 1 5222 6664 Fiscal/Administrative Officer Fiscal/Administrative Officer 1 8715 11123 Planning Administrator/Board Secretary Executive Assistant 1 6374 8134 FY 2019/20 Hourly Salary Range # of Position Title Classification Positions Low High IT Administrator Associate Planner 0 39.30 50.16 Planning Intern Planning Intern 0 22.60 28.84
PCTPA Budget FY 2019/20 Draft February 2019 MEMORANDUM
TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 27, 2019
FROM: Luke McNeel-Caird, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION: CALTRANS DISTRICT 3 REGIONAL MANAGED LANES FEASIBILITY STUDY
ACTION REQUESTED None, for information only. Caltrans and its consultant will make a presentation to the Board on this topic.
BACKGROUND In 2010, a High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane on I-80 between I-5 in Sacramento County and Highway 65 in Placer County was studied and determined that revenues generated would not cover the cost to construct and operate the facility. Since that time, Caltrans has initiated a managed lanes feasibility study in 2017 to look at a regional approach to reduce traffic congestion and potentially generate additional transportation revenue.
DISCUSSION The candidate managed lane strategies being considered as part of the Caltrans feasibility study include: • High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes – Lanes where access is restricted to a subset of vehicles which meet or exceed minimum occupancy requirements. • Express Lanes – Lanes where no-cost access is restricted to a subset of vehicles which meet or exceed minimum occupancy requirements; however, vehicles that do not meet the minimum occupancy requirements can purchase access to the lane by paying a toll. • Reversible Lanes – Lanes that can be allocated to opposing directions of travel to increase capacity in the peak direction.
The next steps will include finalizing strategies for each corridor, developing planning-level cost estimates, and then prioritizing projects. PCTPA staff has submitted comments on the preliminary results requesting that Caltrans consider both I-80 and Highway 65 as candidates for express lanes to provide additional travel options in Placer County.
The results of the Caltrans feasibility study will support two current efforts, 1) to identify priority projects as part of the Placer-Sacramento Corridor Mobility Plan for state grant opportunities and 2) support roadway pricing being considered by SACOG as part of the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) update to meet the regional 19% greenhouse gas reduction target and as part of the 2040 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update.
Caltrans staff will give a presentation on the feasibility study including the background, strategies being considered, and proposed facilities in Placer County.
LM:ML:ss 299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 ∙ FAX 823-4036 www.pctpa.net 58 PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
February 12, 2019 – 3:00 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Staff David Smith, Caltrans Kathleen Hanley Chris Clardy, City of Colfax Aaron Hoyt Wes Heathcock, City of Colfax Mike Luken Araceli Cazarez, City of Lincoln Luke McNeel-Caird Ray Leftwich, City of Lincoln David Melko Brit Snipes, Town of Loomis Solvi Sabol Dave Palmer, City of Rocklin Mike Dour, City of Roseville Jake Hanson, City of Roseville Mark Johnson, City of Roseville Jason Shykowski, City of Roseville
Introductions Mike Luken explained that PCTPA staff had met separately with the City of Auburn and Placer County due to their offices being closed for the observance of Lincoln’s Birthday. Both jurisdictions concurred with the recommendations to the TAC.
FY 2019/20 Preliminary Draft OWP and Budget Luke McNeel-Caird provided the preliminary FY 2019/20 draft Overall Work Program (OWP) and Budget to the TAC for review. Luke explained that there is a continued emphasis on preconstruction activities which includes Highway 65 Widening Phase I design and the I-80 Auxiliary Lanes design, and the Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure Project. Additionally, we will continue coordination with Caltrans on the Phase 1 construction of the I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements project. The preliminary FY 2019/20 OWP also reflects an increase in resources needed for the ongoing effort to explore future local funding opportunities through WE 60 - Regional Transportation Funding Strategy and WE 14 - Communications and Outreach.
Luke added that WE 45 - Placer-Sacramento Corridor Mobility Plan, will identify multimodal projects of statewide significance so that we are more competitive for Cycle 2 of SB 1 grants funding. The plan will also examine the removal of barriers for different modes of travel along the corridor. This will build on the success and make Placer more competitive for funds such as the recently awarded $14.4 million-dollar Active Transportation Program grant for the Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure Project.
Luke added that the budget has increase about $200,000 compared to last year with the increased focus on the local funding strategy and additional revenue for the Placer-Sacramento Corridor Mobility Plan. We plan on bringing this preliminary FY 2019/20 OWP and a balanced budget to the Board this month. The TAC concurred.
Page 1 59 FY 2019/20 Preliminary Findings of Apportionment for Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Aaron Hoyt provided the FY 2019/20 Preliminary Findings of Apportionment for LTF which reflect an apportionment of just over $28 million. Aaron added that with strong LTF receipts, this is one of the largest LTF apportionments that has been presented to the Board for approval. Aaron and Mike explained that PCTPA has conservatively estimated a 2% growth over the current fiscal year given concerns over slowing revenue that the State is projecting. Aaron noted that this estimate can be used for budgeting purposes; however, a revised estimate will be presented to the Board in August, after the close of the fiscal year.
FY 2019/20 Preliminary Findings of Apportionment for State Transit Assistance (STA) Aaron Hoyt provided the FY 2019/20 Preliminary Findings of Apportionment for STA which estimates 16% higher for this fiscal year compared to FY 2018/19 due to SB 1 revenues. This estimate is provided by the State Controller’s Office and funds can only be used for transit purposes. As with LTF, Aaron added that the estimated $3,632,699 can be used for jurisdictional budgeting purposes and a revised estimate will be presented to the Board in August, after the close of the fiscal year.
Unmet Transit Needs Findings Kathleen Hanley provided the Executive Summary to the FY 2018/19 Unmet Transit Needs report that is being taken to the Board for approval this month. Kathleen said that we received a record 244 comments through various workshops, hearing, and online engagement. The four dominant comments included: 1) requests for service that currently exist implying there is a need for more public education regarding current transit service, 2) requests for additional transit service in Rocklin and West Roseville where there has been housing development/growth, 3) requests to improve the impacted commuter bus service, and 4) rural community transit service.
Kathleen explained that there are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet for FY 2019/20, specifically service between Lincoln and Rocklin for someone who is physically unable to use the Placer County Transit Lincoln/Sierra College fixed-route. The Placer County Transit Short Range Transit Plan suggests combining the two Dial-A-Ride services and the jurisdictions, but that is a larger effort than meeting the unmet need. The Transit Operators Working Group (TOWG) has reviewed the report and will work together to meet the need during FY 2019-2020. The Social Services Technical Advisory Committee (SSTAC) concurred with the finding and report. The TAC concurred with the finding and bringing the FY 2018/19 Unmet Transit Needs report to the Board this month.
Caltrans District 3 Managed Lanes Feasibility Study Presentation Luke McNeel-Caird explained that in 2010, a High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane study was completed on I-80 and determined that revenues would not cover the costs. Caltrans will be making a presentation to the Board on a regional managed lanes study for the six-county region. The strategies analyzed included 1) High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, 2) reversible lanes (which were not a recommended strategy), and 3) express lanes where vehicles that do not meet the minimum occupancy requirements can buy access to use the lane.
This study will support the Placer-Sacramento Corridor Mobility Plan efforts as well as roadway pricing being considered as part of SACOG’s 2020 MTP update.
Other Issues/Upcoming Deadlines a) Mike Luken provided information on SACOG’s Green Means Go Funding Program adding that there are a series of meetings happening. This program is a multi-year pilot program to lower greenhouse gas emissions in the six-county region by accelerating infill development, reducing vehicle
Page 2 60 trips, and electrifying remaining trips. Mike encouraged jurisdictions to submit “preapplications” for up to five projects to help SACOG justify the need for funding by the State. b) Aaron Hoyt informed the TAC that he will be bringing the next allocation of Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) and projects to the Board in March. Additionally, he will be bringing the State of Good Repair (SGR) estimate to the Board in March. Aaron responded to Wes Heathcock’s question that we will need to revisit whether we there is still a willingness to “swap” out LCTOP and/or SGR funding with other jurisdictions. c) Mike Luken explained that that March will prove to be a “very long meeting” as there is the transportation funding polling results and other presentations slated for the agenda. Staff is also monitoring potential bills that may impact TDA/LTF allocations for Placer jurisdictions. d) Next TAC Meeting: March 12, 2019
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:40 pm.
Page 3 61 MEMORANDUM
TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 27, 2019
FROM: Kathleen Hanley, Assistant Planner Aaron Hoyt, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT
1. Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects The attached Quarterly Status Report summarizes currently programmed projects in Placer County that are regionally significant and/or funded with state and federal funds. The report provides project descriptions, project costs, and key schedule information. To keep the Board apprised of regionally significant transportation projects in Placer County, staff will provide this report once per quarter.
2. Transit Operations Quarterly Ridership Report The following table summarizes the total ridership counts for each of the transit services provided by Placer County transit operators over the last two years. The FY 18/19 second quarter ridership totaled 270,157, which is down 1.5% percent over the second quarter of FY 17/18. Overall, the ridership is trending upwards at 4.2% over the last year. Staff will provide this report once per quarter to keep the Board apprised of ridership trends among transit operations in Placer County.
Quarterly Ridership Trends by Transit Operator FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 1-Year Transit Operator 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Change (Jan-Mar) (Apr-Jun) (Jul-Sep) (Oct-Dec) (Jan-Mar) (Apr-Jun) (Jul-Sep) (Oct-Dec) Auburn Transit Total (all services) 8,746 11,363 9,342 10,376 8,683 9,058 9,648 8,289 -10.4% Placer County Transit Fixed Route 63,923 61,972 66,574 65,039 63,736 66,939 67,181 61,975 0.9% Dial-A-Ride 7,111 6,838 6,747 8,136 8,174 8,243 7,083 7,212 6.5% Vanpool 6,247 5,414 7,946 5,135 5,558 5,812 4,951 5,557 -11.6% Commuter 18,246 16,332 18,614 17,528 21,050 19,508 19,450 19,287 12.1% Total (all services) 95,527 90,556 99,881 95,838 98,518 100,502 98,665 94,031 2.6% TART Total (all services) 130,954 62,357 87,620 79,835 161,434 67,337 94,302 81,439 12.1% Roseville Transit Fixed Route 45,595 47,183 46,210 46,306 45,337 48,686 48,243 45,526 1.3% Dial-A-Ride 7,057 7,377 7,288 7,124 6,748 7,455 7,124 6,758 -2.6% Commuter 35,829 33,953 32,435 32,245 33,901 34,379 33,372 31,653 -0.9% Total (all services) 88,481 88,513 85,933 85,675 85,986 90,520 88,739 83,937 0.2% Western Placer CTSA Health Express 1,577 1,557 1,323 1,298 1,369 1,261 1,272 1,122 -12.7% My Rides 1,859 1,769 1,537 1,188 1,126 1,348 1,318 1,339 -19.2% Total (all services) 3,436 3,326 2,860 2,486 2,495 2,609 2,590 2,461 -16.1% Region-Wide Total (all services) 327,144 256,115 285,636 274,210 357,116 270,026 293,944 270,157 4.2% Annual Totals 1,163,549 1,186,988 564,101
299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax)
www.pctpa.net 62 PCTPA Board of Directors Status Report February 27, 2019 Page 2
3. CTSA Call Center Quarterly Call Summary Report The South Placer Transit Information Call Center is funded through the Placer County Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) and administered by the City of Roseville. The data highlights the change in stats between the second quarters of Fiscal Year (FY) 2018/19 and FY 2016/17. In an effort to keep the Board apprised of Call Center statistics, staff will provide this report once per quarter.
Quarterly Call Center Statistics FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 1-Year Call Summary Data Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Change (Jan-Mar) (Apr-Jun) (Jul-Sep) (Oct-Dec) (Jan-Mar) (Apr-Jun) (Jul-Sep) (Oct-Dec) Calls Answered 8,852 12,203 12,379 12,021 11,673 12,018 10,970 10,609 -0.4% % Calls Answered within 90 seconds 92% 92% 91% 92% 90% 91% 89% 91% -1.6% % Calls Answered within 3 minutes 97% 97% 97% 97% 96% 96% 96% 96% -1.0% % Calls Answered within 6 minutes 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% -0.3% Calls Abandoned 615 77 942 785 988 1210 996 820 65.9% Average Speed Calls Answered 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.34 0.33 0.35 0.30 14.8% Average Incoming Call Time 1.83 1.64 1.89 1.85 2.16 2.03 2.03 2.11 15.5% Calls Transferred Out 1,730 2,459 2,585 2,546 2,001 2,228 2,060 1,994 -11.1%
4. Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure Project The Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure project will complete environmental, design, and right-of-way requirements to close gaps in the sidewalk network on Highway 49 between I-80 and Dry Creek Road. The project development team (PDT) consisting of PCTPA, Placer County, City of Auburn, Caltrans, and consultant staff continue to meet monthly to provide input on project design aspects and technical studies for the project approval document and environmental studies required of the project.
The project team began 2019 with a series of stakeholder presentations and an open house workshop to share and receive input on the preliminary sidewalk design. Presentations on the project were made at the North Auburn MAC, Auburn Meddlers Group, the Highway 49 Business Association, and the Placer County Public Health Coalition. Approximately 40 participants attended the February 7th Open House at Rock Creek Elementary school. Feedback from the stakeholder presentations and open house participants was positive with comments received about the project timing, funding, aesthetics of the sidewalks, opportunities for enhanced safety, additional pedestrian crossings of highway 49, and bicycle detection at intersections. The project team is assessing how to incorporate the feedback into the preliminary sidewalk plans. The project team is also working on the draft Project Report and environmental document that will be released later this spring.
PCTPA staff will continue to provide regular project updates to the Board of Directors. More information about the project is available at www.pctpa.net/highway49gapclosure/.
63 Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County February 2019
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 In Yuba, Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado and Butte counties on Various Routes at Various Locations - Upgrade pedestrian Upgrade Pedestrian Facilities at Various SHOPP - Mandates Caltrans D3 CAL20516 facilities [EFIS ID 0312000071; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0974] [Total $3,482,000 2019 2016 2018 2018 Locations AC Project Cost $3,482,000 in 17/18 FY]. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
In and near Colfax on I-80, from 0.3 mile south of Weimar overhead to 0.3 mile south of Illinoistown overcrossing - SHOPP Roadway Caltrans D3 CAL20521 I-80 Culvert Rehabilitation $2,115,000 2019 2016 2018 2018 Rehabilitate culvert (PM 28.5/31.5) [EFIS ID 0300020597; CTIPS Pres AC ID 107-0000-0959]. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
In Auburn, SR 49, from 0.1 mile south of Routes 49/80 separation to 0.1 mile north of Dry Creek Road - Rehabilitate RSTP/STBG, SHOPP Caltrans D3 CAL20541 SR 49 Pavement Rehab $39,055,000 2021 2018 2018 2019 Pavement (PM 3.1/7.5) [CTIPS ID 107-0000-0992] [EFIS ID Roadway Pres AC 0300020616]. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
In Yolo, Placer and Sacramento Counties, on I-80, SR 65 and SR Yol/Pla/Sac Ramp Meters at Various 99, at various locations (I-80-2.4/R11.3 used in CTIPS) - Install Caltrans D3 CAL20695 SHOPP Mobility AC $12,454,000 2019 2018 2018 2018 Locations ramp meters [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1008]. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
In and near the cities of Sacramento and Citrus Heights, I-80, from east of the Yolo County Line to the Placer County Line (PM M0.1/18.0); also in Placer County in the City of Roseville, I-80, Caltrans D3 CAL20708 I-80 Fiber Optics at Various Locations SHOPP Mobility AC $16,750,000 2021 2018 2018 2020 from the Sacramento County Line to east of the Sacramento County Line (PM 0.0/0.7) - Install fiber optic communication lines [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1044]. Toll Credits for ENG
In various counties on various routes at various locations within Caltrans District 3 - Repair and install permanent Automatic Caltrans D3 CAL20713 District 3 AVC Upgrades SHOPP Mobility AC $13,570,000 2020 2018 2018 2019 Vehicle Classification (AVC) truck data collection stations [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1051]. Toll Credits for ENG
In Placer and Nevada counties, I-80, at various locations (PM 28.7/R63.5) - Rehabilitate or replace bridges at six locations Caltrans D3 CAL20719 I-80 Bridge Rehab SHOPP Bridge AC $48,385,000 2025 2019 2019 2020 [#19-0038, #19-0112, #19-0113, #19-0114, #17-0023, #19-0118] [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1033].. Toll Credits for ENG
Near Weimar, I-80, from west of Applegate Road to west of SHOPP Roadway Caltrans D3 CAL20720 I-80 Culvert Rehab Weimar Cross Road (PM 25.9/28.5) - Drainage system $4,540,000 2020 2018 2018 2019 Pres AC rehabilitation [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1032]. Toll Credits for ENG
In and near Colfax, I-80, from west of Illinoistown Overcrossing to east of Cape Horn Undercrossing (PM 31.5/36.9) - Drainage SHOPP Roadway Caltrans D3 CAL20721 I-80 Colfax Culvert Rehabilitation $4,730,000 2021 2018 2018 2020 system rehabilitation [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1034]. Toll Credits for Pres AC ENG
S:\PCTPA\Federal, State & Tribal Coordination\Status Reports\2019\201902_ProjectStatusReport 1 of 14
64 Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County February 2019
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 In various counties on various routes at various locations within District 3 (listed under PLA-80-Var in 2018 SHOPP) - Upgrade Caltrans D3 CAL20722 District 3 LED Upgrades SHOPP Mobility AC $2,565,000 2021 2017 2017 2020 Extinguishable Message Signs (EMS) to LED [CTIPS ID 107-0000- 1035]. Toll Credits for ENG
In Placer County on SR 65, at Galleria Blvd. - Install ramp meters [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1064] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON) [EA Caltrans D3 CAL20729 SR 65 Galleria Blvd. Ramp Meters 0F352, PPNO 6913A] [second child project of parent EA 0F350; SHOPP Mobility AC $4,950,000 2020 2017 2017 2017 first child is EA 0F351, PPNO 6913]. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON In Sacramento and Placer Counties, on Routes 50, 80 and 99 at US 50/I-80/SR 99 High Friction Surface various locations - Improve pavement friction and wet weather Caltrans D3 CAL20730 SHOPP Collision AC $1,710,000 2019 2018 2018 2018 Treatment conditions [CTIPS 107-0000-1066]. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
In Placer County, on SR 89, from 0.2 mile south of Goose Meadows Campground to 0.5 mile south of Montreal Road (PM CT Minor Pgm. - Caltrans D3 CAL20756 SR 89 Slope Mesh Drapery $1,317,000 2020 2019 17.2/18.3): Place slope mesh drapery (201.150 SHOPP Roadway National Hwy System Protective Betterments 18/19 FY Minor A). Toll Credits for CON
In various counties on various routes at various locations within District 3 (Primary Location: I-80) - Repair or replace damaged Caltrans D3 CAL20758 Loop Detectors SHOPP Mobility AC $1,629,000 2020 2018 2018 2019 inductive loop vehicle detection elements [CTIPS ID 107-0000- 1099] In Placer, Sacramento and Yolo Counties on I-5, I-80, SR 99 and SR 113 at various locations: Replace obsolete Microwave Caltrans D3 CAL20760 Pla/Sac/Yol Repair Field Elements SHOPP Mobility AC $2,344,000 2020 2018 2018 2019 Vehicle Detection System (MVDS) elements [CTIPS ID 107-0000- 1098]
In Sutter, Glenn, Colusa, Yuba, Placer, Yolo and Sacramento counties at various locations - Advance mitigation credit SHOPP - Roadside D3 Habitat Mitigation at Various Caltrans D3 CAL20767 purchases for future SHOPP construction projects expected to Preservation (SHOPP $1,510,000 2020 2018 2019 2019 Locations impact sensitive species [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1114; CTIPS AC) primary location Sut-99-0.0/42.4] [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1114]
Near Lincoln, on McCourtney Road between Riosa Road and Kilaga Springs Road at the Coon Creek Conservation (C4) Ranch - SHOPP - Roadside Coon Creek Conservation Ranch Habitat Caltrans D3 CAL20768 Advance mitigation construction (4 acres) for future SHOPP Preservation (SHOPP $2,639,000 2030 2018 2020 2020 Mitigation (SR 65) projects expected to impact wetland, riparian and other waters AC) [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1113] Near Magra, from Secret Town Overcrossing to the Gold Run SHOPP Roadway Caltrans D3 CAL20770 I-80 Near Magra Rehab Drainage Systems Safety Roadside Rest Area (Pla-80-38.3/41.5) - Rehabilitate $5,386,000 2023 2018 2020 2021 Pres AC drainage systems [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1119]
S:\PCTPA\Federal, State & Tribal Coordination\Status Reports\2019\201902_ProjectStatusReport 2 of 14
65 Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County February 2019
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 In Sacramento, Yolo, Placer and Glenn Counties on Routes 5, 16, 45, 49, 50, 65, 80, 99, 113 and 174 at various locations - Install Safety Improvements in Various Caltrans D3 CAL20778 traffic operations elements such as queue warning systems, SHOPP Collision AC $4,115,000 2020 2018 2018 2019 Counties, Routes and Locations flashing beacons and lighting, and modify existing signals to new standards [CTIPS Identifier Sac-Var; CTIPS ID 107-0000-1149]
In El Dorado, Butte, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter and Yolo D3 Crash Cushion and Sand Barrel Counties, on US 50, SR 65, SR 70, I-80, SR 89 and SR 99, at Caltrans D3 CAL20780 SHOPP Collision AC $3,360,000 2022 2019 2020 2021 Upgrades various locations - Upgrade crash cushions and sand barrel arrays to make more durable [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1124]
In and near various cities, at various locations, from 0.3 mile west of Douglas Blvd. to 0.2 mile east of Hampshire Rocks Caltrans D3 CAL20783 Placer County MBGR Upgrade SHOPP Collision AC $3,750,000 2022 2019 2019 2021 Undercrossing (PM 1.6/R66.5) - Upgrade guardrail to current standards [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1126]
In Colfax, at the I-80 westbound onramps and offramps to SR 174 (PM 33.0/33.1) - Install roundabout; Financial Contribution CT Minor Pgm. - Caltrans D3 CAL20798 Colfax Roundabout - Maidu Village FCO $1,250,000 2020 2019 Only (FCO to City of Colfax) (201.310 SHOPP Operational National Hwy System Improvements 18/19 FY Minor A)
In Roseville, on eastbound I-80 at Auburn Boulevard (PM 0.4), Atlantic Street (PM 3.0) and Taylor Road (PM 3.2) onramps; also in the City of Rocklin, on westbound I-80 at Sierra College CT Minor Pgm. - Caltrans D3 CAL20799 Roseville Ramp Meter Repair $810,000 2020 2019 Boulevard onramps (PM 7.2/7.5) - Reconstruct five (5) existing National Hwy System non-operational ramp meters (201.315 SHOPP Transportation Management Systems 18/19 FY Minor A)
Near Soda Springs, from east of South Yuba River Bridge to the Nevada County line (PM R62.9/69.7); also in Nevada County SHOPP - Emergency Caltrans D3 CAL20806 Kingvale to Soda Springs Shoulder Repair from Placer County line to east of Soda Springs Overcrossing $10,890,000 2021 2019 2019 2020 Response (SHOPP AC) (PM 0.0/R3.0) - Install concrete gutter to repair shoulder damage at various locations [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1195]
On the Union Pacific mainline, from near the Sacramento and Placer County boarder to the Roseville Station area in Placer County: Construct a layover facility, install various Union Pacific CAPTRAD, IIP - Public Sacramento to Roseville Third Main Track Railroad Yard track improvements, required signaling, and Transportation Capitol Corridor JPA CAL18320 $82,276,000 2021 2011 2018 2019 - Phase 1 construct the most northern eight miles of third mainline track Account, Local, Prop between Sacramento and Roseville (largely all in Placer County), 1A High Speed Rail which will allow up to two additional round trips (for a total of three round trips) between Sacramento and Roseville.
S:\PCTPA\Federal, State & Tribal Coordination\Status Reports\2019\201902_ProjectStatusReport 3 of 14
66 Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County February 2019
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 On the UP mainline, from Sacramento Valley Station approximately 9.8 miles toward the Placer County line: Construct third mainline track including all bridges and required Sacramento to Roseville Third Main Track signaling. Project improvements will permit service capacity Capitol Corridor JPA VAR56199 Local $195,000,000 2025 2023 2023 2025 - Phase 2 increases for Capitol Corridor in Placer County, with up to seven additional round trips added to Phase 1-CAL18320 (for a total of ten round trips) between Sacramento to Roseville including track and station improvements.
At the existing Auburn Multi Modal Station: Obtain right-of-way Auburn Multi Modal Station - Rail City of Auburn PLA25353 and install rail platform extension . (Emission Benefits in kg/day: CMAQ, Local $1,416,480 2020 2011 2020 2020 Platform Extension 0.93 ROG, 1.18 NOx, 0.43 PM10)
In Auburn, along Nevada St from Placer St to Fulweiler Ave: Class 2 bike lane and adjacent sidewalks to allow for continuous ATP (Fed), CMAQ, Nevada Street Pedestrian & Bicycle City of Auburn PLA25471 pedestrian and bicycle access from Old Town Auburn to the Local, Prop 1B $3,992,414 2019 2013 2016 Facilities Auburn Station and EV Cain Middle School. (Emission reductions PTMISEA in kg/day: ROG 0.03, NOx 0.02)
In Auburn and a portion of non-urbanized Placer County: City of Auburn PLA25704 Non-Urbanized Transit Operations FTA 5311, Local $715,134 2022 2019 Ongoing operation of transit. (See PLA25547 for prior years.)
In Colfax: Rising Sun Road from Ben Taylor Road to W. Grass Rising Sun Road Pavement Resurfacing Valley Street; Resurface up to 1,400-feet including engineering Local, RSTP/STBG, City of Colfax PLA25674 $224,998 2019 2018 2018 Project design, base repairs, mill and fill of road (up to 35,000-sf); and RSTP/STBG Exch construction management and inspection.
In Colfax: At the intersection of S. Auburn St. and Westbound Interstate 80 on/off-ramps; construct a four-leg, one-lane CMAQ, CT Minor City of Colfax PLA25676 S. Auburn St. & I-80 Roundabout $3,598,800 2019 2018 2019 roundabout. (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.05, NOx 0.05, SHOPP AC, Local PM2.5 0.01). Toll Credits for ENG
McBean Park Dr. over Auburn Ravine, east of East Ave.: City of Lincoln PLA25540 McBean Park Bridge Rehabilitation HBP, Local $13,521,200 2023 2013 2020 2021 Rehabilitate existing 2 lane bridge. No added lane capacity.
Lincoln Boulevard for a half mile and sections of First Street, Third Street, Fifth Street, Sixth Street and Seventh Street: Lincoln Boulevard Streetscape construct streetscape improvements, including improved City of Lincoln PLA25645 CMAQ $3,019,534 2021 2016 2020 Improvements Project Phase 3 sidewalks and 0.3 miles of NEV/Bike Lanes. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.08 ROG, 0.05 NOx, 0.02 PM2.5, 0.02 PM10) (Toll credits for PE & CON). Toll Credits for ENG, CON
S:\PCTPA\Federal, State & Tribal Coordination\Status Reports\2019\201902_ProjectStatusReport 4 of 14
67 Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County February 2019
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 On 1st (First) Street between Lincoln Boulevard and R Street: Rehabilitate and resurface roadway. Various drainage, ADA, City of Lincoln PLA25646 Street Resurfacing RSTP/STBG $1,671,954 2019 2019 and striping improvements will also be constructed as part of the project. (Toll credits for CON). Toll Credits for CON From East Ave. to Ferrari Ranch Rd.: Replace 2-lane bridge with McBean Park Drive Widening Over City of Lincoln PLA25652 a 3-lane bridge, including the McBean Park Bridge at Auburn Local $14,472,000 2023 2016 2020 2021 Auburn Ravine Ravine. At various locations in Lincoln: Install crosswalk enhancements City of Lincoln PLA25662 Crosswalk Safety Enhancements HSIP, Local $285,000 2019 2018 at unsignalized locations. (H8-03-008) In Lincoln; from Moore Road to Venture Drive on Joiner City of Lincoln PLA25668 Joiner Parkway Repaving Project Phase 2 Parkway. Project will consist of AC overlay, slurry seal, base Local, RSTP/STBG $3,071,654 2023 2019 2022 repairs, ADA ramps and striping.
The overall goal of the Lincoln Boulevard Streetscape Improvement Project is to provide for a more pedestrian, bicycle, and neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) friendly environment along and across the main street through the City. This will be accomplished by closing gaps between and improving existing sidewalks, upgrading and shortening Lincoln Blvd Streetscape Improvement pedestrian crossings with curb bulb outs and ADA compliant City of Lincoln PLA25677 Local $1,566,000 2023 2021 2022 Project Phase 4 pedestrian ramps, and installing combined Class 2 bike lanes and NEV lanes along Lincoln Boulevard. This project will continue the streetscape improvements to construct improved sidewalks, curb bulb outs, curb ramps, and traffic signal improvements on Lincoln Boulevard between 1st Street and 2nd Street and at the intersections of Lincoln Boulevard at 7th Street.
In Lincoln: Widen East Joiner Parkway overcrossing from 4 to 6 City of Lincoln PLA25687 East Joiner Parkway Overcrossing Local $10,000,000 2024 2023 2023 lanes from Ferrari Ranch Road to Sterling Parkway In Lincoln: Widen East Joiner Parkway from 2 to 4 lanes from City of Lincoln PLA25688 East Joiner Parkway Widening Phase 1 Local $7,800,000 2020 2018 2018 Twelve Bridges Drive to Rocklin City Limits In Lincoln: Widen East Joiner Parkway from 2 to 4 lanes from City of Lincoln PLA25689 East Joiner Parkway Widening Phase 2 Local $8,992,396 2024 2023 2023 Twelve Bridges Drive to Del Webb Blvd north.
The project will rehabilitate various roadways in the City of Rocklin. The roadways for this project are: Lonetree Blvd. (City 2018 Pavement Rehabilitation-Various Limit with Roseville to Sunset Blvd), Blue Oaks Blvd. (City Limit City of Rocklin PLA25551 RSTP/STBG $2,375,463 2019 2019 Streets with Roseville to Sunset Blvd), Sunset Blvd. (Stanford Ranch Rd. to SR-65),West Oaks Blvd. (Sunset Blvd. to Stanford Ranch Rd.). PE covers both this and PLA25678.. Toll Credits for CON
Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program, various locations in City of Rocklin PLA25566 Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program City of Rocklin. See Caltrans Local Assistance HBP web site for HBP, Local $572,058 2019 2015 2015 backup list of bridges.
S:\PCTPA\Federal, State & Tribal Coordination\Status Reports\2019\201902_ProjectStatusReport 5 of 14
68 Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County February 2019
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 At Rocklin Rd/Pacific St., replace existing traffic signal intersection with a two lane roundabout. (Emission Benefits City of Rocklin PLA25635 Pacific St at Rocklin Road Roundabout CMAQ, RSTP/STBG $5,682,637 2020 2016 2019 2020 kg/day: ROG 0.26; NOx 0.21; PM2.5 0.01).. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
In the City of Rocklin: Wildcat Blvd. (City Limits with Lincoln to W. Stanford Ranch Rd.), Park Dr. (City Limits with Roseville to 2019 Pavement Rehabilitation - Various Crest Dr.), Sierra College Blvd. (Rocklin Rd. to Southside Ranch City of Rocklin PLA25678 Local, RSTP/STBG $900,463 2020 2019 2023 Roads Rd.), Sierra College Blvd (City Limit with Loomis to City Limit with County of Placer): Rehabilitate roadways.. Toll Credits for ENG, CON
In Roseville, Baseline Road from Fiddyment Road to Sierra Vista City of Roseville PLA15100 Baseline Road Local $7,852,055 2020 2018 2019 2020 Western edge west of Watt Avenue: widen from 2 to 4 lanes. In Roseville, Baseline Rd., from Brady Lane to Fiddyment Road: City of Roseville PLA15660 Baseline Rd. Widening Local $6,106,889 2022 2019 2020 2021 widen from 3 to 4 lanes. Widen Roseville Rd. from 2 to 4 lanes Between Cirby Way and City of Roseville PLA15850 Roseville Road Widening Local $2,500,000 2024 2021 2021 2022 southern city limit. In Roseville, along Dry Creek, Cirby Creek and Linda Creek, ATP (Fed), CMAQ, City of Roseville PLA19910 Dry Creek Greenway Trail construct class 1 bike trail. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.09 $11,790,629 2022 2011 2020 2021 Local ROG, 0.07 NOx, 0.03 PM2.5)
City of Roseville, Market St., from approx. 800 feet north of City of Roseville PLA25377 Market St. Local $8,500,000 2019 2018 2019 2019 Baseline Road to Pleasant Grove: Extend 2 lanes.
City of Roseville, Santucci Blvd. (North Watt Ave.): Extend four City of Roseville PLA25378 Santucci Blvd. Extension Local $6,500,000 2022 2019 2019 2020 lanes from Vista Grande Blvd.to Blue Oaks Boulevard.
Roseville, Harding Blvd @ Dry Creek, I-80 to Royer Park: Construct class 1 bikeway in 2 phases. Phase 1 from I-80 to I-80 To Royer Park Bikeway Phase 2 - Harding Blvd completed in 2004 (PLA20870). Phase 2 City of Roseville PLA25386 Local $870,909 2019 2018 2011 2018 Segment 3 construction is separated into 3 segments: Segment 3 is located from Folsom Road to Lincoln Street/Royer Park. (Emission benefits in kg/day: 0.25 ROG, 0.2 NOx 0.09 PM10)
In Roseville, improve access to Civic Center transit transfer facility by constructing transit/bicycle/pedestrian related City of Roseville PLA25465 Downtown Pedestrian Bridge improvements, including pedestrian bridge and Class I trail CMAQ, Local $4,873,000 2020 2011 2018 improvements. (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.18, NOx 0.11, PM2.5 0.04)
S:\PCTPA\Federal, State & Tribal Coordination\Status Reports\2019\201902_ProjectStatusReport 6 of 14
69 Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County February 2019
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
In Roseville, Miners Ravine Trail, from Lincoln Street to Royer Park along the Dry Creek corridor: Extend class 1 trail, including relocation and safety upgrades to existing Ice House Bridge. ATP (Fed), Bicycle From transit stop at Downtown Roseville Library to existing class Oak Street Extension of Miners Ravine Transportation City of Roseville PLA25469 1 trail in Royer Park: provide bicycle and pedestrian $7,480,077 2020 2011 2016 Trail Account, CMAQ, FTA improvements including replacement of Taylor Street Bridge. 5307 *, Local (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.05, NOx 0.04, PM2.5 0.01) (FTA 5307 to be used on Taylor Street bridge and bike/ped improvements leading to transit stop at library.)
In Roseville, widen Washington Blvd from 2 to 4 lanes, including Washington Blvd/Andora Undercrossing City of Roseville PLA25501 widening the Andora Underpass under the UPRR tracks, Local, RSTP/STBG $29,300,000 2025 2020 Improvement Project between Sawtell Rd and just south of Pleasant Grove Blvd.
Oak Ridge Dr, over Linda Creek, 0.2 mi N of Cirby Way. Replace Oak Ridge Dr/Linda Creek Bridge the existing functionally obsolete 2 lane bridge with a new 2 City of Roseville PLA25508 HBP $4,200,000 2019 2011 2017 2021 Replacement lane bridge. 11/8/2010: (Toll Credits programmed for PE, ROW, and & CON.). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON In Roseville, extend 4 lanes of Pleasant Grove from 1500 feet City of Roseville PLA25527 Pleasant Grove Blvd. Extension Local $5,300,000 2024 2020 west of Market St to Santucci Blvd (Watt Ave). In Roseville, Extend 2 lanes of Blue Oaks Blvd from Hayden City of Roseville PLA25528 Blue Oaks Blvd Extension - Phase 1 Parkway to Westside Dr., Including south half of a 6-lane bridge Local $6,000,000 2020 2019 2019 2020 over Kaseberg Creek. In Roseville, from Fiddyment Rd west to Westbrook Blvd, City of Roseville PLA25538 Vista Grande Arterial Local $2,500,000 2020 2018 construct new 4-lane arterial. In Roseville, Blue Oaks Blvd., from Westside Dr. to Santucci City of Roseville PLA25539 Blue Oaks Blvd. Extension Phase 2 Local $6,350,000 2021 2020 2020 2021 Blvd. (formerly Watt Ave.), extend 2 lanes. In Roseville, Santucci Boulevard South (Watt Ave.) from Baseline City of Roseville PLA25570 Santucci Boulevard South Local $1,000,000 2021 2019 Road north to Vista Grande Boulevard: Construct 4-lane road. Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program (BPMP) for various Roseville Bridge Preventive Maintenance City of Roseville PLA25572 bridges in the City of Roseville. See Caltrans Local Assistance HBP, Local $817,000 2019 2014 2020 Program HBP website for backup list of projects. In Roseville, widen the Atlantic Street/Eureka Road/I-80 W/B On- Atlantic Eureka I-80 W/B On-ramp ramp, including bridge widening over Miners Ravine, from 1- Local, SHOPP City of Roseville PLA25647 $8,380,000 2019 2016 2019 Widening lane to 2-lanes plus an HOV bypass lane. (Toll Credits for CON). Mobility AC Toll Credits for CON
Replace 4 diesel buses with 4 zero emission battery-electric buses. This project is also anticipated to receive HVIP vouchers FTA 5307 - E.S., FTA totaling $630,000 through the State Cap and Trade Program. City of Roseville PLA25666 Commuter Fleet Replacement 5339 - Discr., FTA $3,394,020 2022 2019 The HVIP is not identified in the project programming since 5339 - E.S., Local those funds are submitted directly to the bus manufacturer as an offset to project costs.
S:\PCTPA\Federal, State & Tribal Coordination\Status Reports\2019\201902_ProjectStatusReport 7 of 14
70 Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County February 2019
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10
In Roseveille; Roadway resurfacing on the following streets: Blue Oaks Blvd from Fiddyment to Crocker Ranch, Pleasant Grove from Fiddyment to Michner, Woodcreek Oaks from Junction to Canevari, Foothills from Cirby to Denio Loop, Vernon St from Cirby to Douglas, Riverside Ave from City Limit to Roseville 2018 Arterial Resurfacing Darling, Orlando from Riverside to Cirby, Cirby from Sunrise to City of Roseville PLA25672 RSTP/STBG $4,933,559 2019 2020 Project Rocky Ridge, Folsom from Vernon to Douglas, Lincoln from Folsom to Oak, Estates Dr (all), Harding from Lead Hill to S. end, Stanford Ranch from Hwy 65 to City Limits, Roseville Pkwy from Secret Ravine to Alexandria, Eureka from Douglas to Sierra College & Sierra College from Olympus to Secret ravine.. Toll Credits for CON
In Roseville, at the intersection of Washington Blvd/All America Washington Bl/All America City Bl City of Roseville PLA25673 City Blvd., design and construct a 2-lane roundabout.. Toll CMAQ, Local $2,438,000 2020 2018 2020 Roundabout Credits for CON
In Roseville, on Roseville Parkway, widen from 6 to 8 lanes from City of Roseville PLA25680 Roseville Parkway Widening Local $11,200,000 2021 2019 2020 2021 just east of Creekside Ridge Drive to Gibson Drive (E). In Roseville, on Blue Oaks Blvd between Washington Blvd and City of Roseville PLA25681 Blue Oaks Blvd Bridge Widening Foothills Boulevard, widen from 4 to 8 lanes, including Bridge Local $23,000,000 2023 2020 2021 2022 over Industrial Ave./UPRR tracks.
In Roseville, extend 4-lane Roseville Parkway approx. 3,750' City of Roseville PLA25682 Roseville Parkway Extension from Washington Blvd. to Foothills Blvd., including new 4-lane Local $22,500,000 2023 2020 2021 2022 bridge over Industrial Ave./UPRR tracks
In Roseville, extend 4-lane Westbrook Blvd. south from existing City of Roseville PLA25683 Westbrook Blvd. Extension Westbrook Blvd. to approx. 3,700' south of Pleasant Grove Blvd. Local $2,000,000 2018 2018 (Scope included as part of PLA25483 in MTP.)
In Roseville, construct 4-lane Westbrook Blvd. from Baseline Rd. City of Roseville PLA25684 Westbrook Blvd. South to approx. 1,500 north. (Scope included as part of MTP project, Local $2,000,000 2018 2018 PLA25483)
In Roseville, construct 4-lane Vista Grande Blvd. approx. 2,600' City of Roseville PLA25685 Vista Grande Boulevard East Local $2,800,000 2018 2018 west from Fiddyment Rd. to just west of Upland Drive. In Roseville, widen Fiddyment Road (add one S/B lane & City of Roseville PLA25686 Fiddyment Road Widening frontage impvmnts.) from 5 to 6 lanes from Pleasant Grove to Local $1,400,000 2018 2018 Baseline Road.
In Roseville, on Washington Blvd. between Sawtell Rd. and just Washington Boulevard Bikeway and ATP (Fed), CMAQ, City of Roseville PLA25702 south of Pleasant Grove Blvd., construct bicycle and pedestrian $3,982,000 2023 2020 2020 Pedestrian Pathways Project Local improvements adjacent to roadway.. Toll Credits for CON
S:\PCTPA\Federal, State & Tribal Coordination\Status Reports\2019\201902_ProjectStatusReport 8 of 14
71 Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County February 2019
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 Purchase 3 replacement cutaway "dial-a-ride" diesel fuel buses City of Roseville PLA25703 Replace 3 dial-a-ride buses FTA 5307 - E.S., Local $600,000 2019 2019 consistent with the Roseville Transit fleet management plan. Planning, Programming, Monitoring 2011- PCTPA PLA25413 PCTPA plan, program, monitor (PPM) for RTPA related activities. RIP State Cash $1,125,000 2023 2011 2018
In Placer County: Between I-80 and Pleasant Grove Boulevard; Reconfigure I-80/SR 65 interchange to add auxiliary lane on northbound SR 65 from I-80 westbound on-ramp to Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road off-ramp, widen inside northbound SR 65 from 2 to 3 lanes from south of Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road off-ramp to Pleasant Grove DEMO HPP, Local, Boulevard off-ramp, including widening Galleria NCI, Prop 1B Trade I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements PCTPA PLA25440 Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road northbound off-ramp and on- Corridor, SHOPP $53,283,200 2020 2010 2017 2017 Phase 1 ramp, and southbound on-ramp (PA&ED, PS&E, ROW, and CON Collision AC, SHOPP to be matched with Toll Credits). SHOPP funding (EA 03-0H260) Mobility AC for auxiliary lane on northbound SR 65 between I-80 and Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road. SHOPP funding (EA 03- 0F352) for southbound on-ramp from Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road.. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
Provide educational and outreach efforts regarding alternative transportation modes to employers, residents, and the school community through the Placer County Congestion Management Placer County Congestion Management PCTPA PLA25468 Program (CMP). CMP activities will be coordinated with the City CMAQ, Local $1,256,813 2022 2011 Program of Roseville and SACOG's Regional Rideshare / TDM Program. (Emission Benefits kg/day: ROG 11.44; NOx 11.59; PM2.5 5.54). Toll Credits for CON
SR 65, from Galleria Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd., make capacity and operational improvements. Phase 1: From Blue Oaks Blvd. to Galleria Blvd., construct third lane on southbound SR 65 and SR 65 Capacity & Operational PCTPA PLA25529 auxiliary lane from Galleria Blvd. to Pleasant Grove Blvd on CMAQ, Local $16,250,000 2020 2013 2020 2020 Improvements Phase 1 southbound SR 65, including widening Galleria Blvd. southbound off-ramp, (Toll credits for PA&ED)(Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 15.80; NOx 15.88; PM10 11.66)
In Placer County: provide motorist assistance and towing of disabled vehicles during am and pm commute periods on I-80 PCTPA PLA25543 Placer County Freeway Service Patrol CMAQ, State Cash $2,703,927 2022 2014 (Riverside Ave to SR 49) and SR 65 (I-80 to Twelve Bridges Dr). (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 5.62; NOx 2.25; PM2.5 0.34)
S:\PCTPA\Federal, State & Tribal Coordination\Status Reports\2019\201902_ProjectStatusReport 9 of 14
72 Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County February 2019
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 In Roseville and Rocklin: Between SR 65 and Rocklin Rd. on eastbound I-80, and east of Douglas Blvd. to west of Riverside Ave. on westbound I-80; Construct eastbound I-80 auxiliary 2016 EARREPU, I-80 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane and I-80 PCTPA PLA25576 lane, including two-lane off-ramp to Rocklin Rd, and construct DEMO HPP, Local, $18,655,000 2023 2014 2023 2023 Westbound 5th Lane 5th lane on westbound I-80, including reducing Douglas NCI Boulevard off-ramp from 2-lanes to 1-lane. (Toll credits for PE, ROW, and CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
In Placer County: Between Douglas Blvd. and Rocklin Road; Reconfigure I-80/SR 65 interchange to widen southbound to eastbound ramp from 1 to 2 lanes, replace existing eastbound to northbound loop ramp with a new 3 lane direct flyover ramp I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements PCTPA PLA25649 (including full middle structure for East Roseville Viaduct), Local $250,000,000 2030 2019 2026 2026 Phase 2 construct collector-distributor roadway parallel to eastbound I- 80 between Eureka Road off-ramp and SR 65, and widen Taylor Road from 2 to 4 lanes between Roseville Parkway and Pacific Street.
Along SR 49 from I-80 to Dry Creek Road In the City of Auburn and County of Placer construct sidewalks and ADA curb ramps PCTPA PLA25670 Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure at various locations (Emissions Benefit in kg/day: ROG 0.06, NOx CMAQ, Local $13,800,000 2023 2018 2019 2023 0.04, PM2.5 0.01). Toll Credits for PE and ROW.. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW Planning, Programming, Monitoring 2019- PCTPA PLA25679 PCTPA plan, program, monitor (PPM) for RTPA related activities. RIP State Cash $840,000 2023 2019 2023 Baseline Road Widening Phase 1 (West Baseline Rd. from Watt Avenue to future 16th street: Widen Placer County PLA15105 Local $19,200,000 2020 2012 2013 2014 Portion) from 2 to 4 lanes. Walerga Rd: Widen and realign from 2 to 4 lanes from Baseline Placer County PLA15420 Walerga Road Local $13,781,700 2020 1998 1999 2014 Rd. to Placer / Sacramento County line. PFE Rd, from Watt Ave. to Walerga Rd: Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Placer County PLA18490 PFE Rd. Widening Local $13,085,000 2024 2012 2013 2017 and realign. Widen Sunset Boulevard from State Route 65 to Cincinnati Placer County PLA25044 Sunset Blvd. Widening Avenue from 2 to 4 lanes. Project includes widening Industrial Local $37,500,000 2025 2014 2014 2014 Blvd / UPRR overcrossing from 2 to 4 lanes.
Sunset Blvd, from Foothills Boulevard to Fiddyment Rd: Placer County PLA25170 Sunset Blvd Phase 2 Local $6,365,000 2025 2006 2006 2016 Construct a 2-lane road extension [PLA15410 is Phase 1.]
In Placer County: Between SR 65 and Foothills Boulevard; Construct phase 1 of Placer Parkway, including upgrading the SR 65/Whitney Ranch Parkway interchange to include a Placer County PLA25299 Placer Parkway Phase 1 southbound slip off-ramp, southbound loop on-ramp, Local, RSTP/STBG $70,000,000 2022 2013 2016 2019 northbound loop on-ramp, six-lane bridge over SR 65, and four- lane roadway extension from SR 65 (Whitney Ranch Parkway) to Foothills Boulevard.
S:\PCTPA\Federal, State & Tribal Coordination\Status Reports\2019\201902_ProjectStatusReport 10 of 14
73 Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County February 2019
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 Bowman Rd, over UP Railroad, BNSF RR and AMTRAK, 0.1 miles HBP, Local, Placer County PLA25447 Bowman Rd Bridge south of 19C-62: Rehabilitate the existing bridge without adding $3,248,002 2020 2010 2019 RSTP/STBG additional lanes. (Toll credits for CON). Toll Credits for CON
Bowman Rd, over UP Railroad, BNSF Railyards & AMTRAK, 0.1 miles north of 19C-61: Rehabilitate the existing bridge without 2016 EARREPU, HBP, Placer County PLA25448 Bowman Rd Bridge $3,637,018 2020 2010 2018 adding additional lanes. (Toll credits for CON). Toll Credits for Local, RSTP/STBG CON
Dowd Rd over Coon Creek, 0.4 miles north of Wise Rd.: Replace Dowd Rd Bridge Replacement at Coon Placer County PLA25449 existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits HBP, Local $10,400,000 2021 2008 2017 2021 Creek programmed for ROW & CON). Toll Credits for ROW, CON In various location ins Placer County, perform preventive Placer County PLA25458 Bridge Preventive Maintenance maintenance on bridges. See Caltrans Local Assistance HBP HBP, Local $1,356,000 2023 2015 2023 website for locations. Baseline Road Widening Phase 2 (West Baseline Road from Sutter County Line to Future 16th Street. Placer County PLA25463 Local $29,000,000 2020 2014 2016 2019 Portion) Widen from 2 to 4 lanes. Dowd Rd, over Markham Ravine, 0.5 miles south Nicolaus Rd: Dowd Rd Bridge Replacement at Placer County PLA25474 Replace existing 2 lane structurally deficient bridge with a new 2 HBP, Local $6,050,000 2020 2008 2011 2018 Markham Ravine lane bridge. (Toll credits for CON.). Toll Credits for CON
Haines Rd, over Wise Canal, 0.45 miles North of Bell Rd: Replace Placer County PLA25475 Haines Rd Bridge Replacement existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits for HBP $6,200,000 2023 2011 2019 2023 PE, ROW, & CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
Bridge No. 19C0002, Yankee Jim's Rd over North Fork American River, 1.5MI W of Shirttail Cyn Rd, Replace structurally deficient Yankee Jim's Rd Bridge at North Fork Placer County PLA25505 1 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll credits HBP $23,938,000 2023 2011 2022 2023 American River programmed for PE, ROW & CON.). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON Walerga Rd/Dry Creek Bridge Walerga Rd, over Dry Creek, 1.1 mi S Base Line Rd. Replace the HBP, Local, Placer County PLA25506 $45,247,021 2022 2011 2016 2018 Replacement existing 2 lane bridge with a 4 lane bridge.. Toll Credits for CON RSTP/STBG Wise Rd, over Doty Creek, 0.5 miles east of Garden Bar: Replace HBP, Local, Placer County PLA25513 Wise Rd Bridge Replacement existing 1-lane functionally obsolete bridge with a new 2-lane $4,876,390 2024 2012 2015 2017 RSTP/STBG bridge.. Toll Credits for CON Brewer Rd., over Pleasant Grove Creek, 4.2 miles north of Baseline Rd.: Replace 2-lane bridge with a new 2-lane bridge. Placer County PLA25518 Brewer Rd. Bridge Replacement HBP $5,272,000 2020 2012 2015 2017 (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, & CON.). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
Watt Ave./Center Joint Ave., over Dry Creek, 0.4 mi north of Placer County PLA25535 Watt Ave. Bridge Replacement HBP, Local $19,892,750 2025 2013 2022 2023 P.F.E. Rd.: Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a 4 lane bridge.
S:\PCTPA\Federal, State & Tribal Coordination\Status Reports\2019\201902_ProjectStatusReport 11 of 14
74 Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County February 2019
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 Crosby Harold Rd. Over Doty Creek, 0.9 mi N of Wise Rd.: Placer County PLA25536 Crosby Harold Rd. Bridge Replace an existing 1 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll HBP $5,000,000 2022 2013 2022 2023 Credits for PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
Gold Hill Rd. over Auburn Ravine, 0.65 mi north of SR 193: Placer County PLA25541 Gold Hill Rd. Bridge Replacement Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll HBP, Local $6,672,600 2020 2013 2016 2018 credits for PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
Complete a 10' wide paved Class I multipurpose trail connecting Northstar Village roundabout to the southerly border of Army Placer County PLA25549 Martis Valley Trail CMAQ, Local $4,514,886 2020 2012 2018 2019 Corps property. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.01; NOx 0.01) Pedestrian Pathway along Cook Riolo Rd from existing sidewalk at Creekview Ranch Middle School North (Emission Benefits in CMAQ, Local, Placer County PLA25565 Cook Riolo Road Pathway $2,943,451 2018 2014 2016 2018 kg/day: ROG 0.02, NOx 0.01) [Toll Credits for ROW, CON]. Toll RSTP/STBG Credits for ROW, CON Various corridors throughout Placer County: Conduct a Roadway Placer County PLA25568 Signage Upgrades Safety Signing Audit and upgrade signs. (HSIP6-03-011) (Toll HSIP, Local $2,228,914 2019 2014 Credits for CON). Toll Credits for CON
Replace one CNG bus with one new cleaner CNG Bus for Placer CMAQ, Prop 1B Placer County PLA25583 CNG Bus $530,000 2019 2018 County Transit. (Emissions Benefits in kg/day: NOx 0.75.) PTMISEA At 19 intersections throughout southwest Placer County: Installation of lighting, upgraded pavement markings, and Placer County PLA25650 Safety Improvements HSIP $777,400 2019 2016 flashing beacon improvements. HSIP7-03-009 (Toll Credits for CON). Toll Credits for CON Haines Rd., over South Fork of Dry Creek, south of Dry Creek Placer County PLA25661 Haines Rd. Bridge Replacement Rd.: Replace existing 2-lane bridge with a new 2-lane bridge. HBP $6,200,000 2022 2023 2023 2023 (Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
At various locations in Placer County: Install crosswalk Placer County PLA25663 Crosswalk Safety Enhancements enhancements to existing unprotected crosswalks. (H8-03-010). HSIP $249,700 2020 2019 Toll Credits for CON The project will replace the existing traffic signal and all-way stop control at the Bell Road / Interstate 80 interchange with CMAQ, Local, Placer County PLA25671 Bell Road at I-80 Roundabouts two roundabouts. PE Only. Total Project Cost is $7.5 million. $7,500,000 2024 2019 2021 2022 RSTP/STBG (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.25, NOx 0.19, PM2.5 0.01).. Toll Credits for ENG
Auburn Folsom Rd over Miners Ravine, 1.1 miles north of Auburn Folsom Rd Over Miners Ravine - Douglas Blvd. Rehabilitate 2 lane bridge, remove older portion Placer County PLA25691 HBP, Local $2,410,000 2023 2023 2023 2023 Rehabilitate Bridge of bridge and widen to standard lanes and shoulders - no added lane capacity.
S:\PCTPA\Federal, State & Tribal Coordination\Status Reports\2019\201902_ProjectStatusReport 12 of 14
75 Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County February 2019
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 New Aiport Rd over Wise Canal, northest of Hwy 49. New Airport Rd Over Wise Canal - Placer County PLA25692 Rehabilitate existing 2 lane bridge with wider lanes and HBP, Local $3,449,500 2023 2023 2023 2023 Rehabilitate Bridge shoulders - no added capacity. Mt. Vernon Rd over North Ravine, 2 miles west of Auburn. Mt. Vernon Rd Over North Ravine - Placer County PLA25693 Rehabilitate existing 2 lane bridge with wider lanes and HBP, Local $2,393,500 2023 2023 2023 2023 Rehabilitate Bridge shoulders - no added lane capacity. McKinney Creek Rd over McKinney Creek, 0.1 miles northwest McKinney Creek Rd Over McKinney Creek of McKinney Rubicon SP. Replace the existing 2 lane bridge with Placer County PLA25694 HBP $3,317,500 2023 2023 2023 2023 - Replace Bridge a new 2 lane bridge - no added lane capacity.. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON Cascade Rd over McKinney Creek, 0.2 miles northwest of Cascade Rd Over McKinney Creek - McKinney Rubicon SP. Replace an existing 2 lane timber bridge Placer County PLA25695 HBP $3,317,500 2023 2023 2023 2023 Bridge Replacement with a new 2 lane bridge - no added lane capacity.. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON Gladding Rd over Coon Creek, south of Riosa Rd. Rehab existing Gladding Rd Over Coon Creek - Placer County PLA25696 1 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge, no added lane capacity.. HBP $4,109,500 2023 2023 2023 2023 Rehabilitate Bridge Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
Dalby Rd over Yankee Slough, just west of Dowd Rd. Replace an Dalby Rd Over Yankee Slough - Bridge Placer County PLA25697 existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge - no added lane HBP $2,245,000 2023 2021 2023 2023 Replacement capacity.. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON
Gladding Rd over Doty Creek, 0.9 miles north of Wise Rd. Rehab Gladding Rd Over Doty Creek - Placer County PLA25698 existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge - no added lane HBP $4,918,000 2023 2023 2023 2023 Rehabilitate Bridge capacity.. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON Dry Creek Rd over Rock Creek, 0.35 miles west of Placer Hills Rd. Dry Creek Rd Over Rock Creek - Placer County PLA25699 Rehabilitation of existing 2 lane bridge, widen for standard lanes HBP, Local $1,849,001 2023 2022 2023 2023 Rehabilitate Bridge and shoulders (no added capacity).
On Foresthill Road (PM 3.65 to 4.15), approx. 1/2 mile to 1 mile northeast of Lake Clementine Road, reconstruct the roadway to Placer County PLA25700 Foresthill Road Hilfiker Wall Stabilization RSTP/STBG $500,000 2019 2018 2019 stabilize settlement occurring behind a large mechanically stabilized earth retaining wall.. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON Operating assistance for rural transit services within Placer Placer County Transit PCT10509 Transit Operations County. Outside the Sacramento Urbanized area.FY 2019: FTA 5311, Local $814,300 2019 2019 $405,065 Operating assistance and preventive maintenance for urban Preventive Maintenance and Operating transit services within Placer County.FFY 2018 - Operating Placer County Transit PCT10510 FTA 5307 - E.S., Local $1,740,684 2019 2018 Assistance, 2018 Assistance $1,293,446FFY 2018 - Preventive Maintenance $447,238 Asphalt overlay and reconstruction repair of various streets in Town of Loomis PLA25579 2017 CIP Road Maintenance Project the Loomis Downtown Core Area covered under the Capital Local, RSTP/STBG $821,886 2020 2018 Improvement Program Schedule for 2017.
S:\PCTPA\Federal, State & Tribal Coordination\Status Reports\2019\201902_ProjectStatusReport 13 of 14
76 Quarterly Status Report on Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County February 2019
Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 In Loomis: Taylor Road from Horseshoe Bar Road to King Road: Town Center Implementation Plan construct new bike lanes and sidewalks and streetscape Town of Loomis PLA25644 CMAQ, Local $1,079,124 2020 2019 Improvements Phase 4 improvements. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.03 ROG, 0.02 NOx, 0.01 PM2.5, 0.01)
S:\PCTPA\Federal, State & Tribal Coordination\Status Reports\2019\201902_ProjectStatusReport 14 of 14
77
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Luken
FROM: AIM Consulting
DATE: February 5, 2019
RE: January Monthly Report
The following is a summary of communications and public information work performed by AIM Consulting (AIM) on behalf of Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) in the month of January.
AIM assisted with media relations and public information. AIM maintained, drafted, published, and promoted content for PCTPA social media to share current information about PCTPA projects, programs, and activities.
Below are activity summaries of AIM’s work:
Funding Strategy
AIM continued to work with PCTPA to support its efforts in discussing the need for local transportation infrastructure funding.
PCTPA.net & Social Media
AIM continued posting social media updates on the PCTPA Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to highlight the work being done by and on behalf of PCTPA, other transportation projects in the Placer region, and current transportation news.
Key social media posts included: • Placer County Year in Review • Capitol Corridor National Championship Game Service • Granite Bay Transportation Workshops • Interstate 80 Truck Lane • Meet the PCTPA Staff • Walerga Road Bridge Replacement Approval • Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations Grant Award • Capitol Corridor Winter Storm Weather Advisory • Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure Community Open House
78 PCTPA January 2019 Monthly Report Page 2 of 3
• Interstate 80 / Highway 65 Interchange Concrete Pour Video • Placer County Snow Removal Operation • Roseville Transit: Martin Luther King Jr. Day Service • Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure Community Open House • Capitol Corridor 2019-2020 Draft Business Plan Input • Capitol Corridor Service Expansion • California Transportation Commission: Interstate 80 / Highway 65 Tour • California Transportation Commission: City of Roseville Downtown Bridges Project Tour • California Transportation Commission: Capitol Corridor Third Track Project Tour • Interstate 80 / Highway 65 Nightwork • Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure Community Open House • CHP Winter Storm Advisory • Rocklin and Roseville Today: Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure Project Article
Current social media page statistics include: • Facebook – 1,380 Followers • Twitter – 369 Followers • Instagram – 176 Followers
Key website analytics include: • Total page views for the PCTPA website during January: 3,671 o 21% of views were on the PCTPA homepage o 7% of views were on the Real Time Traffic Information Page o 3% of views were on the Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure Project Page • Total page views for Interstate 80 / Highway 65 Interchange Improvements website during January: 1,048
Media Relations
AIM continued to monitor industry and local news in an effort to identify outreach opportunities as well as support the Agency’s efforts to address local transportation and transit issues. Key stories in local media outlets were highlighted on social media.
AIM handled media relations for the announcement of the California Transportation Commission grant, awarded to PCPTA for the Highway 49 Sidewalk Gap Closure Project. This included developing and distributing a news release, developing social media content around the announcement, as well as responding to local news outlet inquiries.
Newsletter #40
AIM continued drafting and formatting articles for the 40th edition of the PCTPA newsletter. These articles focused on: Executive Director Mike Luken’s Message, the Highway 49 Gap Closure Project,
79 PCTPA January 2019 Monthly Report Page 3 of 3 Improvements coming to and around Sierra College, and the Regional Transportation Plan Notice of Preparation.
Project Assistance
AIM filmed, created and launched the Interstate 80 / Highway 65 Interchange Concrete Pour Video, which included facts about a concrete pour, amount of material used, and workers needed to complete the pour.
In addition, AIM managed the Interstate 80 / Highway 65 website and collected community email sign- ups. AIM also managed social media and community comments regarding the project. AIM provided Caltrans with weekly email sign-up updates to include their weekly construction email distribution list.
AIM, in coordination with PCTPA, prepared for the upcoming Highway 49 Gap Closure project open house. AIM drafted and launched a project webpage, created communication collateral - including a notification flyer and email notifications- created and launched a press release, and notified the public about the meeting. AIM worked with local public information officers to get the word out about the open house.
80
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 722-0167
Jan. 31, 2019
To: PCTPA From: Sante Esposito Subject: January Monthly Report
Committee/Subcommittee Assignments and Staff Changes
Assignments and staff changes are a work in progress. The significant changes in the House (Democrats gained 40 seats) will result in significant changes in committee assignments and in the ratio of Democrat and Republican members on the committees. Even the Senate with less dramatic changes (Republicans gained 2 seats) will result in a ratio change for the committees – either adding one Republican or subtracting one Democrat. While chairs have been selected for the committees, committee and subcommittee assignments have not been finalized. Also, there will be significant staff shuffles and changes for a while, as Republican Members have to reduce staff and Democrat Members have to add new staff.
Congressional Priorities
The top three priorities identified by the House Democrats are ethics reform, immigration and infrastructure. Top three priories identified by the Senate Republicans are health care reform, middle American tax reform and infrastructure.
Infrastructure
Last week twenty high-ranking Trump Administration officials met with the President last week to discuss a potential infrastructure plan. Apparently, the Administration is n ow considering a 13-year program but has not settled on key issues, including whether it will propose new ways to pay for increased spending. The 13-year aspect would mirror the longest ever highway funding bill, from 1957 to 1969. In Congress, House Democrats are working on a plan of their own, led by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) which will likely be very different from what Trump ultimately proposes. It's not clear if any Senate Republicans are working on legislative language too, but some expect that they'll wait to see what DeFazio puts out first and work from there. DeFazio's approach has been to call for a gradual gas and diesel tax increase, and while that's not necessarily dead on arrival, it's a tricky political issue for many Republicans and even some Democrats. “If the president will make it a priority or mention it in his State of the Union, that’s going to jump start it,” said Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., the new ranking member on the
81 Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “He has to get behind it for this thing to become a reality.”
Blumenauer
Congressman Blumenauer's push to create an infrastructure subcommittee on Ways and Means was shot down by Democratic leaders, who did not include an exemption for the subcommittee cap in their rules package. A Ways and Means spokesperson said infrastructure issues will remain under the tax policy subcommittee. "Creating an additional subcommittee is not simple. But I received assurances that we will be focusing on [infrastructure financing] early out of the box," he said. Blumenauer said he had talked to Democratic leadership and 50 individual members in lobbying for the new subpanel. "I think there's merit to the concept and I hope we'll be able to keep the spirit moving forward," he said. A Ways and Means Task Force on the issue is still a possibility. Also, Blumenauer is working on legislation that would raise the federal gas tax by five cents a year starting in 2020. Raising the gas tax is not a new idea for the Oregon Democrat; it's part of a package of infrastructure ideas he's pushed repeatedly over the years. But it carries new significance now that Democrats are in charge of the House. Blumenauer, who's on Ways and Means, said that the first step before introducing legislation will be "listening to what the American public wants," which he said Republicans failed to do while they were in charge. He also said that while Republicans might not come out loudly in favor of a gas tax hike but "there's always been Republican support privately."
Federal Funding
The partial government shutdown agencies are currently funded through Feb. 15. Roughly 75% of the government is funded as their appropriation bills were passed. The approximate 25% shutdown agencies includes the Department of Transportation.
FY19 Transportation Appropriations Bills
Even though the final bill has not been passed, funding levels in both are not far apart.
FY20 President’s Budget
By law, the President’s budget is supposed to be submitted by the first Monday in February. We continue to keep in touch with OMB on budget issues, but additional funding is always a tough sell with them and they tend to keep information to themselves.
FY20 Congressional Budget Resolution Congress has an April 15 deadline to pass a Congressional Budget Resolution. A budget resolution is in the form of a concurrent resolution – passed by both House and Senate – but does not have the force of law. It does not go to the President for signature (in contrast to appropriation bills which must be signed into law). A budget resolution sets upper limits for spending under major functions, which serves as the basis for allocating funding levels to the appropriations subcommittees.
82 Earmarks
This is the latest on the earmarks issue. Congressional earmarks reached their peak in the middle of Bush’s administration, when the fiscal 2005 defense spending bill included 2,506 earmarks worth $9 billion and the energy and water development bill included 2,313 earmarks worth $4.9 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service. The practice came to a screeching halt in November 2010, after Republicans took control of the House in the Tea Party revolution and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) imposed a ban. However, opponents such as Boehner and former Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who died last year, are no longer in Congress to fight the return of earmarks. Other senior Republicans such as Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (Ala.) and Senate Rules Committee Chairman Roy Blunt (Mo.) have voiced support for allowing Congress to earmark funds again. They think that if individual members of Congress have more power to direct federal resources back to their home states and districts, they are more likely to agree to bipartisan compromises and pass bills. A spokeswoman for Shelby noted that the rules package passed by the new House Democratic majority did not include a prohibition on congressionally directed spending. “I think it’s not coincidental that the appropriations system and other legislative [process] dramatically deteriorated in their ability to produce a result at the same time that the Congress stopped directing the administration as to how money should be spent,” said Blunt, who also chairs the Senate Republican Policy Committee. One of the strongest proponents of earmarks is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who like Pelosi served as a member of the House Appropriations Committee. Hoyer says earmarks or congressionally directed spending should be allowed, albeit with reforms to make it tougher to secure shady deals for lobbyists or lawmakers’ personal gain. “I strongly support restoring Congressionally directed spending with the reforms that Democrats put in place when we previously had the majority to ensure transparency and accountability." Hoyer noted that when Democrats controlled the House from 2007 to 2010 they adopted earmark reforms. Those reforms included eliminating projects going to for-profit entities, requiring members to certify that they had no financial interest in their requests, and ensuring that members post all of their requests along with a justification for each project on their congressional websites. Hoyer said he and his Democratic colleagues will be “discussing a path forward” in the weeks ahead. House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said she supports congressionally directed spending in line with Congress’s Article I powers.
Introduced Bills With the new Congress starts a new bill cycle process. Bills not passed last year die. Some Members may choose to reintroduce their bills. We will continue to monitor this process to identify bills of interest.
Bill Tracking
Summaries not yet available.
H.R.658 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)To facilitate efficient investments and financing of infrastructure projects and new job creation through the establishment of a
83 National Infrastructure Development Bank, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3] (Introduced 01/17/2019) Cosponsors: (58) Committees: House - Energy and Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Financial Services, Ways and Means Latest Action: House - 01/17/2019 Referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Financial Services, and Ways and Means.
H.R.228 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)To authorize programs and activities to support transportation options in areas that are undergoing extensive repair or reconstruction of transportation infrastructure, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep. Velazquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7] (Introduced 01/03/2019) Cosponsors: (2) Committees: House - Transportation and Infrastructure Latest Action: House - 01/03/2019 Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
H.R.180 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)Build America Act of 2019 Sponsor: Rep. Hastings, Alcee L. [D-FL-20] (Introduced 01/03/2019) Cosponsors: (5) Committees: House - Transportation and Infrastructure, Ways and Means Latest Action: House - 01/03/2019 Referred to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Ways and Means.
84 Capitol Corridor Performance How's Business?: FFY 2018-19 Revenue Monthly Revenues Actual vs Business Plan 12.9% vs.FFY 19 Business Plan YTD Actual FY 19 Revenue (through Dec-18) 4.4% vs. Prior FFY 18 YTD FFY 19 Business Plan 14.3% vs. Prior FFY 17 YTD Actual FY 18 Revenue Actual FY 17 Revenue $3,500,000
$3,400,000
$3,300,000
$3,200,000
$3,100,000
$3,000,000
$2,900,000 Revenue $2,800,000 Total Annual FFY 19 Business Plan = $35,300,000 $2,700,000
$2,600,000
$2,500,000 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19
Month
85
86 FY 2019 Performance Measures
State Perfomance Standards (a) Other Performance Measures Customer Ridership On-time Performance System Operating Ratio (b) Revenues Satisfaction Month Actual Business Plan End-point Passenger Actual Actual Business Plan Actual October-18 162,458 142,810 91.3% 90.7% 64.5% $3,281,922 $3,017,948 93.4 November-18 147,786 142,503 84.3% 83.0% 65.2% $3,411,135 $3,011,469 89.0 December-18 131,586 125,411 85.3% 83.0% 61.9% $3,107,014 $2,650,272 January-19 128,471 $2,714,930 February-19 125,713 $2,656,641 March-19 146,799 $3,102,263 April-19 141,289 $2,985,817 May-19 150,934 $3,189,630 June-19 144,508 $3,053,835 July-19 132,513 $2,800,343 August-19 148,855 $3,145,705 September-19 140,595 $2,971,146
Total YTD 441,830 410,724 87% 86% 64% $9,800,071 $8,679,690 91.2 Previous YTD 422,583 - - 90% 92% 59% $9,389,518 - - 85.5 YTD Change 4.6% 7.6% -3.3% -6.6% 8.8% 4.4% 12.9% 6.6% Annual Standard/Measure 1,670,400 90% 90% 52% $35,300,000 92.5 a) Standard developed by CCJPA in annual business plan update and approved by the California State Transportation Agency b) This standard measures total revenues (farebox and other operating credits) divided by total expenses (Amtrak operations + CCJPA Call Center)
87 Capitol Corridor Station Activity - Minimum Station boarding and alightings
Highest Average Number of Passengers on a train by Station Between 10/01/2018 and 12/31/2018
Station Board Alight Average Meet Code Count Count Riders Criteria ARN 2,399 1,818 22.9 Y BKY 22,111 21,954 17.5 Y DAV 47,797 44,737 36.7 Y EMY 48,778 49,820 39.1 Y FFV 12,169 12,504 9.8 N FMT 5,767 6,180 9.3 N GAC 23,316 20,451 34.0 Y HAY 6,788 7,757 11.3 N MTZ 25,112 26,952 20.7 Y OAC 10,169 12,185 13.7 N OKJ 34,935 34,187 27.4 Y RIC 27,593 30,021 22.9 Y RLN 2,755 2,176 26.8 Y RSV 5,111 4,702 53.3 Y SAC 116,846 113,989 91.6 Y SCC 7,335 6,619 10.9 N SJC 22,878 24,022 36.5 Y SUI 15,399 16,537 12.7 N
88